Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world
September 1, 2017 10:08 AM Subscribe
So it's Hayek's fault? Yuck. It still seems like a propaganda term; most of the time "conservative" or "Reaganist" or "austeritarian" would be clearer.
posted by zompist at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by zompist at 10:55 AM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
Yeah, my rule of thumb is that if someone who isn't a political science professor says "neoliberal", 75% of the time they mean "someone whose politics I disagree with on some dimension, but I wanna sound like one of the cool kids when I say so".
posted by Itaxpica at 11:07 AM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by Itaxpica at 11:07 AM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
I couldn't even get past the subtitle before wanting to vomit due to romantic hyperbolae:
Neoliberalism strips away the things that make us human.
What is this strange, mystical "human" stuff whereof you speak? How can humans create something so very un-human? I'm definitely in agreement that a critique can and should be made of Neo-Liberalism but does it have to involve this humanist theology?
posted by mary8nne at 11:09 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
Neoliberalism strips away the things that make us human.
What is this strange, mystical "human" stuff whereof you speak? How can humans create something so very un-human? I'm definitely in agreement that a critique can and should be made of Neo-Liberalism but does it have to involve this humanist theology?
posted by mary8nne at 11:09 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
If you think "What did Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Bill Clinton all agree on?" you'll get a pretty decent working definition of neoliberalism.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:11 AM on September 1, 2017 [38 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:11 AM on September 1, 2017 [38 favorites]
Great article, thanks for posting.
Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon, a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists say it’s a meaningless insult: they’re the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.)
This is a perfect descriptivist definition as I've seen it used over the last 5 or so years. People who argue strongly for, e.g., universal healthcare, a welfare state, progressive tax systems, aren't neo-liberals, even if they're "wrong" on trade policy.
posted by skewed at 11:12 AM on September 1, 2017 [5 favorites]
Over the past few years, as debates have turned uglier, the word has become a rhetorical weapon, a way for anyone left of centre to incriminate those even an inch to their right. (No wonder centrists say it’s a meaningless insult: they’re the ones most meaningfully insulted by it.)
This is a perfect descriptivist definition as I've seen it used over the last 5 or so years. People who argue strongly for, e.g., universal healthcare, a welfare state, progressive tax systems, aren't neo-liberals, even if they're "wrong" on trade policy.
posted by skewed at 11:12 AM on September 1, 2017 [5 favorites]
It still seems like a propaganda term; most of the time "conservative" or "Reaganist" or "austeritarian" would be clearer.
One of the defining hallmarks of neoliberalism is that those market-oriented policies were adopted by left of center parties, hence the liberalism in the word. Calling them "conservative" or "Reaganist" is kind of accurate, but it also doesn't capture the fact that this approach to governing was an adaptive trait and not something ingrained in the beliefs of left-of-center parties.
posted by Automocar at 11:19 AM on September 1, 2017 [12 favorites]
One of the defining hallmarks of neoliberalism is that those market-oriented policies were adopted by left of center parties, hence the liberalism in the word. Calling them "conservative" or "Reaganist" is kind of accurate, but it also doesn't capture the fact that this approach to governing was an adaptive trait and not something ingrained in the beliefs of left-of-center parties.
posted by Automocar at 11:19 AM on September 1, 2017 [12 favorites]
In the past 30 years, extreme worldwide poverty has been halved, twice as many women are represented in worldwide parliaments and twice as many children are receiving primary education...
And since the recession, fascists, nationalists and populists have multiplied their power in Poland, Hungary, Russia and the US.
I guess I'm just not as enthusiastic about debating the finer points of political compass etymology as I was in my 20s... cuz, you know, we got shit to do...
posted by Skwirl at 11:31 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
And since the recession, fascists, nationalists and populists have multiplied their power in Poland, Hungary, Russia and the US.
I guess I'm just not as enthusiastic about debating the finer points of political compass etymology as I was in my 20s... cuz, you know, we got shit to do...
posted by Skwirl at 11:31 AM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
I sort of walk away with the feeling that it's become trendy, or that there's a sense in which, those aspiring to political leadership are trying to avoid being responsible for their beliefs - even laudable ones - unless, of course, they're not.
posted by emmet at 12:18 PM on September 1, 2017
posted by emmet at 12:18 PM on September 1, 2017
Bill Clinton fought for universal healthcare, increased wealth transfers to the poor, made the tax system more progressive, and is, at the same time, a poster boy for neoliberalism.
Should he be?
posted by skewed at 12:32 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Should he be?
posted by skewed at 12:32 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
Bill Clinton fought for universal healthcare provided by the market.
And he made the tax system more progressive without making it a bit unfriendly to the market.
(I'd need to see the evidence that wealth transfers to the poor actually increased because of his policies.)
The fact that he avoided perturbing or offending the markets and their donor-class proponents is what makes him a poster-boy for neoliberalism, even before we get into all the policies that involved expanding the carceral state - which really translates into sequestering the losers in the market and/or turning them into slave labor.
posted by bashos_frog at 12:43 PM on September 1, 2017 [16 favorites]
And he made the tax system more progressive without making it a bit unfriendly to the market.
(I'd need to see the evidence that wealth transfers to the poor actually increased because of his policies.)
The fact that he avoided perturbing or offending the markets and their donor-class proponents is what makes him a poster-boy for neoliberalism, even before we get into all the policies that involved expanding the carceral state - which really translates into sequestering the losers in the market and/or turning them into slave labor.
posted by bashos_frog at 12:43 PM on September 1, 2017 [16 favorites]
Bill Clinton fought for universal healthcare, increased wealth transfers to the poor, made the tax system more progressive, and is, at the same time, a poster boy for neoliberalism.
Wait... Citations needed. His welfare reforms represented the biggest cuts to the American welfare state since it was first established, as far as I know he didn't make the tax system more progressive, and the only health care proposal on the table under his administration was one that tried to leverage "market competition" exactly in line with this conception of neoliberalism. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but living through Clinton myself, I came to see him as far too conservative, especially after the welfare and sentencing reforms that came under his watch.
It's a totalitarian ideology, really, whatever you want to call it, that substitutes inane discredited ideas from social Darwinist schools of thought for rational thinking. And yes, it's become the de facto Washington consensus despite all evidence that it's no good for making individual people's lives any better or solving any market failures, but it gets trotted out as the solution for market failures, too, insanely, because it's a totalizing ideology.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:46 PM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
Wait... Citations needed. His welfare reforms represented the biggest cuts to the American welfare state since it was first established, as far as I know he didn't make the tax system more progressive, and the only health care proposal on the table under his administration was one that tried to leverage "market competition" exactly in line with this conception of neoliberalism. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but living through Clinton myself, I came to see him as far too conservative, especially after the welfare and sentencing reforms that came under his watch.
It's a totalitarian ideology, really, whatever you want to call it, that substitutes inane discredited ideas from social Darwinist schools of thought for rational thinking. And yes, it's become the de facto Washington consensus despite all evidence that it's no good for making individual people's lives any better or solving any market failures, but it gets trotted out as the solution for market failures, too, insanely, because it's a totalizing ideology.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:46 PM on September 1, 2017 [10 favorites]
Clinton and Blair were "Third Way" pols in contrast with Neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher. Still centrist and market oriented, but not union busters.
posted by notyou at 12:52 PM on September 1, 2017
posted by notyou at 12:52 PM on September 1, 2017
So, I assume this wildly successful wealth transfer over the last 20+ years has resulted in the poor owing a greater share of the nations wealth than when it started, right?
No?
The richest 1% of the population seems to have absorbed nearly all the new wealth created in that time? And some more of the previously existing wealth?
Hmm. Maybe there's some definition of "wealth transfer" that I am unfamiliar with.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:15 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
No?
The richest 1% of the population seems to have absorbed nearly all the new wealth created in that time? And some more of the previously existing wealth?
Hmm. Maybe there's some definition of "wealth transfer" that I am unfamiliar with.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:15 PM on September 1, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's still a useful term in context - it's just picked up a surfeit of associations.
Clinton and Blair were "Third Way" pols in contrast with Neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher. Still centrist and market oriented, but not union busters.
In particular, I think people find it confusing that it gets applied to both of these groups. But if the intended implication is that the center-left absorbed many of the same ideas, leading to a collapse of its distinction from the center-right (on economic issues) - that's fairly accurate?
Clinton may or may not qualify as an outright union buster but he did notably shift his party away from close alignment with labor. And Tony Blair?
posted by atoxyl at 1:29 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
Clinton and Blair were "Third Way" pols in contrast with Neoliberals like Reagan and Thatcher. Still centrist and market oriented, but not union busters.
In particular, I think people find it confusing that it gets applied to both of these groups. But if the intended implication is that the center-left absorbed many of the same ideas, leading to a collapse of its distinction from the center-right (on economic issues) - that's fairly accurate?
Clinton may or may not qualify as an outright union buster but he did notably shift his party away from close alignment with labor. And Tony Blair?
posted by atoxyl at 1:29 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
If you want to smoosh them (Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, Blair) all together into one category that captures their similarities, just use "Capitalist politicians." Within that category Thatcher and Reagan hew to the laissez faire end of the spectrum while Clinton and Blair reside closer to the velvet glove end and it's helpful to have those distinctions.
posted by notyou at 2:39 PM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by notyou at 2:39 PM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
The reason why "neoliberalism" is such a good term is because it identifies a shift between the post-war welfare states (in which both sides of the aisle were for socialized medicine) and the free market worship of Thatcher/Reagan. The usefulness of the term is to emphasize how closely the economic policies of mainstream democrats and republicans resemble each other. The alt-right and the socialist left stand outside these mainstream positions, but the point is that the mainstream positions have changed.
Consider the negligible economic differences between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter or between Obama and Romney. As a duo, Ford/Carter were way to the left of Obama/Romney. Gerald Ford being more economically Left than Barack Obama is why "neoliberalism" is a good term. Something changed among conservatives and liberals alike. Namely, a more favorable view of capitalism.
It seems to be a tough pill for most liberals to swallow, to admit that the party that most aligns with their values is nakedly capitalist and, thus, cruel. This is why neoliberalism is a good term; liberalism is a cruel, capitalistic system that impoverishes and oppresses. Just because the bad guys are fascists doesn't mean the good guys are capitalists.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 3:11 PM on September 1, 2017 [20 favorites]
Consider the negligible economic differences between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter or between Obama and Romney. As a duo, Ford/Carter were way to the left of Obama/Romney. Gerald Ford being more economically Left than Barack Obama is why "neoliberalism" is a good term. Something changed among conservatives and liberals alike. Namely, a more favorable view of capitalism.
It seems to be a tough pill for most liberals to swallow, to admit that the party that most aligns with their values is nakedly capitalist and, thus, cruel. This is why neoliberalism is a good term; liberalism is a cruel, capitalistic system that impoverishes and oppresses. Just because the bad guys are fascists doesn't mean the good guys are capitalists.
posted by R.F.Simpson at 3:11 PM on September 1, 2017 [20 favorites]
The group of people who continue to insist 'neoliberal' is just a meaningless insult are evidence enough that the spectrum of political thought has become restricted such that nothing but neoliberalism is acceptable for policy.
posted by Jimbob at 3:14 PM on September 1, 2017 [20 favorites]
posted by Jimbob at 3:14 PM on September 1, 2017 [20 favorites]
If you think capitalism is a legitimate way of managing, say, health care and education, and that it's possible just by making it 'nice' capitalism, guess what, you may be a neoliberal!
posted by Jimbob at 3:21 PM on September 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
posted by Jimbob at 3:21 PM on September 1, 2017 [15 favorites]
I can't remember where I first learned the word 'neoliberal', and now I use it as a umbrella concept for entire categories of shitty or otherwise problematic situations. And I can totally fathom how people who derive their information and understanding from other sources and experiences would perceive my usage of 'neoliberal' to be against their sensibilities. It's not that different from what happens to terminology and language in other progressive movements.
posted by polymodus at 3:53 PM on September 1, 2017
posted by polymodus at 3:53 PM on September 1, 2017
No, factory123, it's a useful term exactly because it highlights the stupidity of people who see Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as the only possible options, the extreme positions. People who look at decades of increasing economic inequality, declining wages in relation to productivity, basic services like education and medical treatment getting beyond the reach of significant chunks of the population and think 'aaah yes, look at that wonderful progress that has totally been happening, isn't politics as usual swell?!'.
posted by Jimbob at 4:25 PM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by Jimbob at 4:25 PM on September 1, 2017 [7 favorites]
Let me give an example, let me present one possible manifesto for a social contract.
As citizens of wealthy, first-word democracies in the 21st century, we have rights and we have responsibilities.
Responsibilities include obeying the law, paying taxes, and voting to elect the people who make the laws, decide what taxes are collected and how they are spent.
Rights include the right to equitable access to education at all levels, access to medical care, access to income to avoid poverty for those who are unable to work and earn, and rights to protect workers from intolerable, abusive working conditions at their jobs. People who work full time jobs have the right to expect sufficient compensation for their labour to allow them to have shelter and sustenance.
Now I don't think that is a radical theory. That isn't G-20 anarchist brick throwing stuff. It's a fairly basic plan. And yet that concept of society is no longer supported as viable, achievable or even positive by the major left parties in the US, the UK, or Australia. Maybe some individual politicians still pay lip-service, but lack any power of influence to improve things.
That's neoliberalism.
posted by Jimbob at 4:42 PM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
As citizens of wealthy, first-word democracies in the 21st century, we have rights and we have responsibilities.
Responsibilities include obeying the law, paying taxes, and voting to elect the people who make the laws, decide what taxes are collected and how they are spent.
Rights include the right to equitable access to education at all levels, access to medical care, access to income to avoid poverty for those who are unable to work and earn, and rights to protect workers from intolerable, abusive working conditions at their jobs. People who work full time jobs have the right to expect sufficient compensation for their labour to allow them to have shelter and sustenance.
Now I don't think that is a radical theory. That isn't G-20 anarchist brick throwing stuff. It's a fairly basic plan. And yet that concept of society is no longer supported as viable, achievable or even positive by the major left parties in the US, the UK, or Australia. Maybe some individual politicians still pay lip-service, but lack any power of influence to improve things.
That's neoliberalism.
posted by Jimbob at 4:42 PM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
they're the two politicians who received enough support from their parties to get them on the ticket.
And yet when anyone suggests that may be partly because the 'left' party is a little too close to banks and corporate donors who fund and promote those sorts of candidates, they're called unrealistic communists. By the people receiving those donations. Makes you think.
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
And yet when anyone suggests that may be partly because the 'left' party is a little too close to banks and corporate donors who fund and promote those sorts of candidates, they're called unrealistic communists. By the people receiving those donations. Makes you think.
posted by Jimbob at 4:48 PM on September 1, 2017 [6 favorites]
"Neoliberal," if it is "a umbrella concept for entire categories of shitty/problematic situations" is not a useful term...
Perhaps, but my unstated point was that it precisely isn't, as such. It depends on also answering, Which categories? It's a bit like how social justice jargon has to be unpacked for people (especially those whose behaviors are the targets of these terminologies)--it may sound vague or superficial or not useful, to them. I can't make people read up or gain the background necessary for the conversation, for multiple and interrelated reasons. I can't tell people to listen to Noam Chomsky lectures, or start with Capital Volume I, because that's something specific that worked for me but not necessarily for them. This is often acknowleged as the unpacking problem and how different progressive communities interact and communicate ideas.
posted by polymodus at 5:14 PM on September 1, 2017
Perhaps, but my unstated point was that it precisely isn't, as such. It depends on also answering, Which categories? It's a bit like how social justice jargon has to be unpacked for people (especially those whose behaviors are the targets of these terminologies)--it may sound vague or superficial or not useful, to them. I can't make people read up or gain the background necessary for the conversation, for multiple and interrelated reasons. I can't tell people to listen to Noam Chomsky lectures, or start with Capital Volume I, because that's something specific that worked for me but not necessarily for them. This is often acknowleged as the unpacking problem and how different progressive communities interact and communicate ideas.
posted by polymodus at 5:14 PM on September 1, 2017
Bill Clinton fought for universal healthcare, increased wealth transfers to the poor, made the tax system more progressive, and is, at the same time, a poster boy for neoliberalism.
Ah, hold on a minute there, this is a very misleading oversimplification.
Clinton got rid of a federal welfare program with open ended funding (ie funding would be provided as needed), and replaced it with block grants to be distributed by states. These grants were conditional on performance metrics wrt state spending, caseload, and the percentage of recipients in work or training programs. In addition, stringent restrictions were placed on who received assistance - people were now cut off after two years, immigrants were not eligible, single mothers had to work in order to qualify, to name a few.
It's important to remember that Clinton was exploiting racial tensions to advance his agenda (that is, pandering to fearful, racist, white people). One reason welfare reform was so popular politically was the emergence of the 'welfare queen' trope - more or less, the female counterpart to the 'super-predator'. And quite predictably, the biggest victims of the reforms were working class women of colour, who happened to be single mothers (perhaps because their partners were serving mandatory minimum life sentences for bullshit drug offences). If this outcome was indeed wildly popular, that is only because, apparently, nobody gives a shit about poor, racialized, single mothers.
You can look at graphs of government expenditures all you like (a quintessentially neoliberal mode of analysis, one might argue), but as they say, the devil is in the details.
Oh and a modest income tax increase on the wealthy is a drop in the bucket next to the slashes in capital gains tax, and financial deregulation. Rich people don't give a shit about income tax.
posted by thedamnbees at 5:44 PM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
Ah, hold on a minute there, this is a very misleading oversimplification.
Clinton got rid of a federal welfare program with open ended funding (ie funding would be provided as needed), and replaced it with block grants to be distributed by states. These grants were conditional on performance metrics wrt state spending, caseload, and the percentage of recipients in work or training programs. In addition, stringent restrictions were placed on who received assistance - people were now cut off after two years, immigrants were not eligible, single mothers had to work in order to qualify, to name a few.
It's important to remember that Clinton was exploiting racial tensions to advance his agenda (that is, pandering to fearful, racist, white people). One reason welfare reform was so popular politically was the emergence of the 'welfare queen' trope - more or less, the female counterpart to the 'super-predator'. And quite predictably, the biggest victims of the reforms were working class women of colour, who happened to be single mothers (perhaps because their partners were serving mandatory minimum life sentences for bullshit drug offences). If this outcome was indeed wildly popular, that is only because, apparently, nobody gives a shit about poor, racialized, single mothers.
You can look at graphs of government expenditures all you like (a quintessentially neoliberal mode of analysis, one might argue), but as they say, the devil is in the details.
Oh and a modest income tax increase on the wealthy is a drop in the bucket next to the slashes in capital gains tax, and financial deregulation. Rich people don't give a shit about income tax.
posted by thedamnbees at 5:44 PM on September 1, 2017 [8 favorites]
But those policies took tax dollars and diverted them to the poor, in virtually the same way a UBI (or a negative income tax) would.
Tax credits are not "virtually the same" as a UBI or negative income tax.
By definition, a poor person cannot receive more from a tax credit than they paid in taxes. You could zero out taxes on the poor, and that's still just giving poor people their money back. By itself, it's not actually spending a dime of rich people's money on poor people, so I wouldn't call it wealth transfer.
I'm not saying it's bad to cut taxes for poor families, but EITC so by accepting capitalism's biggest mean test ("Work or die"), and the idea that poor people can't get out more than they paid in.
So I don't agree that, "Already making money and have a kid? Here's some of your taxes back, proportional to how much you made, up to like $3k per kid, limit two," is virtually the same as, "Not making money? Here's some money from more wealthy people."
posted by fleacircus at 6:31 PM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
Tax credits are not "virtually the same" as a UBI or negative income tax.
By definition, a poor person cannot receive more from a tax credit than they paid in taxes. You could zero out taxes on the poor, and that's still just giving poor people their money back. By itself, it's not actually spending a dime of rich people's money on poor people, so I wouldn't call it wealth transfer.
I'm not saying it's bad to cut taxes for poor families, but EITC so by accepting capitalism's biggest mean test ("Work or die"), and the idea that poor people can't get out more than they paid in.
So I don't agree that, "Already making money and have a kid? Here's some of your taxes back, proportional to how much you made, up to like $3k per kid, limit two," is virtually the same as, "Not making money? Here's some money from more wealthy people."
posted by fleacircus at 6:31 PM on September 1, 2017 [3 favorites]
The reason why "neoliberalism" is such a good term is because it identifies a shift between the post-war welfare states (in which both sides of the aisle were for socialized medicine) and the free market worship of Thatcher/Reagan.
Yeah, this. The shift in the first-world mirrors a shift in the developmentalist approaches to the third-world taken by Western nations. The genesis of the neoliberal idea comes from the rejection of democracy in places like South America (by the United States, primarily, thus the "Washington Consensus") if it led to anything that seemed socialistic or protectionist.
The fact that, even on this forum, there have been multiple threads about what neoliberalism is, and many recommendations of books and article sources discussing the history and theory of it, there can be such resistance to the very possibility that It Actually Exists is mind-boggling.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:32 PM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
Yeah, this. The shift in the first-world mirrors a shift in the developmentalist approaches to the third-world taken by Western nations. The genesis of the neoliberal idea comes from the rejection of democracy in places like South America (by the United States, primarily, thus the "Washington Consensus") if it led to anything that seemed socialistic or protectionist.
The fact that, even on this forum, there have been multiple threads about what neoliberalism is, and many recommendations of books and article sources discussing the history and theory of it, there can be such resistance to the very possibility that It Actually Exists is mind-boggling.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 6:32 PM on September 1, 2017 [9 favorites]
Oh well nm lol
posted by fleacircus at 6:51 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by fleacircus at 6:51 PM on September 1, 2017 [2 favorites]
"Neoliberal," if it is "a umbrella concept for entire categories of shitty/problematic situations" is not a useful term, it's a way for leftists to beat up on other leftists so that progress doesn't happen.
Whether the term is overburdened is one thing but this pretends there's minimal difference between factions regarding what "progress" means and how it is to be made - which is clearly not true.
posted by atoxyl at 8:43 PM on September 1, 2017
Whether the term is overburdened is one thing but this pretends there's minimal difference between factions regarding what "progress" means and how it is to be made - which is clearly not true.
posted by atoxyl at 8:43 PM on September 1, 2017
TANF funding gets spent on things like faith based abstinence only or pregnancy counseling services that discourage abortion now, though, since Bush II. There was just a story on NPR a little while back about one such organization and how TANF funds don't equate to direct wealth transfers anymore. I don't buy it. The Clinton welfare reforms were such a big rightward swing, even I was aware of it at an age when I couldn't vote yet and barely knew my right from my left (I was a slow learner on that one).
posted by saulgoodman at 8:55 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by saulgoodman at 8:55 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: guess what, you may be a neoliberal!
posted by elsietheeel at 10:45 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by elsietheeel at 10:45 PM on September 1, 2017 [1 favorite]
(Sorry not sorry, neoliberals.)
posted by elsietheeel at 10:46 PM on September 1, 2017
posted by elsietheeel at 10:46 PM on September 1, 2017
I wonder why only Germany has attempted to be ordoliberal.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:46 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Apocryphon at 1:46 AM on September 2, 2017 [1 favorite]
And that's exactly the problem - the US would decidedly not be in the same situation if Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole, or George HW Bush had been elected. The policy differences are substantially different. To stick with welfare as an example, if the Gingrich/Republican Revolution congress had a republican president, then we wouldn't have had welfare reform, we'd have had welfare elimination, full stop.
You would have had a lot more neoconservative positions adopted as social policy certainly but when it comes to economics the differences may not have been that huge. NAFTA, WB/IMF positions on deregulation as a global policy, that general commitment to free trade and accepting whatever came out of having free trade effectively decide social change would not have changed too much.
posted by biffa at 11:03 AM on September 3, 2017
You would have had a lot more neoconservative positions adopted as social policy certainly but when it comes to economics the differences may not have been that huge. NAFTA, WB/IMF positions on deregulation as a global policy, that general commitment to free trade and accepting whatever came out of having free trade effectively decide social change would not have changed too much.
posted by biffa at 11:03 AM on September 3, 2017
« Older Go with the flow | Evil doers get scoopsed Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Ooh, nice. I'd been wondering for a while now what "neoliberal" actually meant - both how it was used (other than "a slur that means 'your political beliefs are stupid'") and what it grew from.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 10:19 AM on September 1, 2017 [17 favorites]