General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNeoliberal?
What does this term mean to you?
I have my own understanding, as I understand it means one who is social progressive but conservative otherwise.
I would appreciate hearing more in depth or opposing explanation of the term, and how it applies to the current political situation.
Leaving for work, but hope to see some good stuff when I get back!
Thanks for your time and patience.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Deregulation "free" trade and monetary policy that focuses on eliminating inflation over maintaining high employment.
Neoliberalism says nothing about social policies or foreign affairs. Neoliberal is found in both parties and in fact is the dominant economic ideology of both parties.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)mainly in regards to economics and the "liberalization" of Government policies to increase privatization, deregulation and pretty much every policy loved by Reagan and his ilk.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least in the 1990s.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)What policy positions did he take, that would cover that?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Gore famously debated Ross Perot laying out the case for NAFTA which passed shortly thereafter (and US support for the trade deal shot up in public opinion polls).
You can read a transcript of the debate here:
http://ggallarotti.web.wesleyan.edu/govt155/goreperot.htm
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's the crux of it. The idea that we live in a global economy and that getting rid of impediments to free trade will be beneficial to all.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)With a new coat of paint.
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)Noun
1. an outgrowth of the U.S. Liberal movement, beginning in the late 1960's,
that modified somewhat its traditional endorsement of all trade unions and
opposition to big business and military buildup.
Noun
Neoliberalism:
2. a modern politico-economic theory favoring free trade,
privatization, minimal government intervention in business,
reduced public expenditure on social services etc.
I refer to them as sellouts and closet Republicans.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)They are all for bombing and invading other countries too. Just like a Neocon.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)"Liberal" here is meant in the original, European sense.
malaise
(269,004 posts)The experiment was Chile after they assassinated Allende.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I think he was a well-meaning man who was rightly skeptical of some of the popular ham-fisted approaches to economic planning that were popular in the mid 20th century. At the same time I think he was too quick to completely dismiss Socialism, especially with how powerful computers are now. I remember reading somewhere that in the 70s and early 80s economists in the USSR did a fair amount of work in using computers to help state economic planning work better and more efficiently but that computers at the time just were not powerful enough to do complex enough market simulations.
Friedman, on the other hand, was very mich an asshole POS.
malaise
(269,004 posts)A detestable pro-elite scumbag - hidden in it all was the Road to Our Serfdom - Thatcher adored him.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)Many thanks to you and everyone else who offered explanations and comments.
From what I am reading, neoliberalism is not a desireable trait in a Democrat.
JHB
(37,160 posts)The "liberal" part is the "liberalization of markets", i.e., removing constraints and barriers.
The original idea was that if the world were more interconnected economically, with fewer nationalistic choke-points on resources, big wars would be less likely to happen. Theoretically, it was a "build everyone up" strategy.
Whatever the merits of that view, the idea was quickly appropriated by those who wanted to lower taxes, eliminate regulations, remove labor protections, and generally get rid of impediments to maximizing profits. It may have started as a "build everyone up" idea, but it's become a race for the bottom.
It has nothing to do with social views, and in fact depends on divorcing social views (especially those that might result in limitations on markets) from economic policy.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The original idea was that if the world were more interconnected economically, with fewer nationalistic choke-points on resources, big wars would be less likely to happen. Theoretically, it was a "build everyone up" strategy.
Whatever the merits of that view, the idea was quickly appropriated by those who wanted to lower taxes, eliminate regulations, remove labor protections, and generally get rid of impediments to maximizing profits. It may have started as a "build everyone up" idea, but it's become a race for the bottom.
The 'original idea' was undoubtedly what FDR had in mind. His plans to 'liberalize' markets after WWII were based on a desire to deemphasize nationalism and increase multilateral governance of global issues like diplomacy, trade, finance, banking, etc.
Perhaps his support for 'internationalism' came largely from the failures of the republicans who preceded him who were isolationists and corporatists who were big on constraints and barriers to trade to benefit corporations and the rich. FDR perceived that their isolationism, protectionism (both based on nationalism) and corporatism (regressive taxes, weak unions, deregulation) were to blame for the Great Depression and the lead up to WWII.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)economic liberalism: little to no regulation of the 1%. The "fat cats" of the earlier "progressive era."
Your understanding is common, as neo-liberals often proclaim themselves to be "fiscally conservative, socially liberal." That's incorrect. They are economically liberal, and they use social liberalism to maintain support while they attack and erode economic regulations and labor unions.
That's my explanation.
Here are some others:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism
Wounded Bear
(58,658 posts)They use the "liberal" part of the label to falsely attract progressives who think, well it says 'liberal' so it must be OK.
Kind of like the Germans who bought the Social/Workers crap in the NAZI label (National Socialist Workers Party). In fact, one of the first things Hitler did was eliminate the unions.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)warrprayer
(4,734 posts)I kind of had a feeling it was a misleading term.