General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat and who are neo liberals? Lots of criticism of them with nothing backing it up.
Not even a name to go along with it to help me understand... So, thought I would ask?
For those who know, please let us all know.
Ezior
(505 posts)where the government should reduce taxes, spending, and regulations in order to let the free market decide on most things. Basically, right-wing economic policies. Reagonomics.
At least that's how I know it. And it seems to be one of the political terms that actually have the same meaning in Europe vs. the US. (As opposed to "liberal", "social justice" and possibly other terms.)
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)I've seen it used otherwise though--at least from the context. I've been confused about this as well.
Ezior
(505 posts)that libertarians extend this laissez-faire concept to matters outside of economic issues. So libertarians are neoliberals who also oppose laws against things like gay marriage, or drug prohibition, etc. Basically they want almost no government at all. Not quite sure about libertarians though, we don't use that term a lot here.
In Germany, you can be neoliberal and still oppose gay marriage (or even same rights through civil unions), as demonstrated by the bigoted FDP and CDU (Merkel) parties. Their concept of liberty is strictly restricted to the liberty of huge corporations and 1%ers to suck money out of citizens.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)I've always associated the term with Libertarians. I vehemently disagree with them on economics but I can have a better and sometimes fun conversation/argument with them than I can conservatives. Conservatives aren't worth the bother most times.
Greybnk48
(10,168 posts)Reaganomics. Privatize everything, drop regulations. Based loosely, and wrongly IMO, on Adam's Smith's "invisible hand." Let the market operate freely.
Adam Smith clearly assumed his "invisible hand" would be operating from within a moral and empathetic society. The neoliberals (don't think Democrats) pulled the ethics out of it and went to town. Morality is not part of it, money/profits rule. Results, not intent.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2] These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[10][11]
The term has been used in English since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,[12] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences,[13][14] as well as being used by critics.[15][16] Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal"[17] and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people,[18][19] as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[3] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy.[4]
The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.[4] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[20]:145 The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.
In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[4] along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.[21] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[4] By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and the Zapatistas reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation.[3] Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing.[14] The impact of the global 20082009 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.[22]
still_one
(92,219 posts)LonePirate
(13,426 posts)The historic definition of the term is almost moot nowadays.
still_one
(92,219 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)I couldn't remember but then, I try to forget Stein and her supporters as often as possible
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)In the classical sense, as the other poster wrote, it refers to liberals who favor capitalism, but in generalities, it is used as as a slander of moderates who actually favor regulation of capitalism.
The term has become so diluted in common parlance that it's not even worth considering the words of people who throw it around as they so frequently do.
The 2016 Democratic Party Platform was the most liberal, in all aspects, of any platform that preceded it. Yet the nominee was slandered as a "neoliberal" despite that fact.
librechik
(30,674 posts)it's a slur against dumb liberals who don't understand trying to help is for losers.
betsuni
(25,538 posts)In 2017 in the U.S.? Have no idea what and who. I learned yesterday on DU that the word "status quo" has an alternative fact meaning in the True Progressives' Revolutionary Dictionary -- it means "moneyed politics" and we should all know that somehow. I'd love to know what neoliberal means in the Revolutionary Dictionary.
mcar
(42,334 posts)Have no clue what it means either. To me, it's one of those negative words that doesn't really apply to any Democrats. Like "establishment," "status quo," "Third Way," etc.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)In favor of "outsiders" including DT.... I said to myself WTF is wrong with you people. Words matter to me. accomplishment and experience are things you don't get to erase.
betsuni
(25,538 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But there was a lot of hostility toward feminists during the primary. Voting with our vaginas and crap like that. Was very disturbing to see.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I support free trade and liberal immigration laws. I also support necessary regulation, strenuous enforcement of individual rights, and a robust safety net.
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)It's sometimes employed by undergraduates (who took one intro level economics class in which they achieved a "gentleman's C" as a reason for sleeping in or voting third party in important, institution-shattering elections.
See also "Third Way".
All kidding aside, the Encyclopedia Britannica has a helpful summary.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism
librechik
(30,674 posts)Third Party or Bust!
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)Then give them an actual definition.
neoliberalism (n)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services.
2. (Economics) a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neoliberalism
librechik
(30,674 posts)I can't tell them anything they don't know--it's annoying
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)Counterpunch had nothing good to say about either of the Democratic candidates before the primaries began. Their writers aren't as ideologically pure as they pretend to be. They impose a reductive purity standard on others, yet reserve the privilege of employing a continuum for themselves.
But your "meh" reaction is understandable; I wouldn't quibble with Steiners over the definitions of vague pejorative political labels. I'd confront them with the present realities that they worked to bring about. I'd hold them accountable in a very loud voice. After all, Steiners insisted that Trump was the less dangerous opinion.
librechik
(30,674 posts)mainly just disgustingly "Obama is a baby killer" so ran out of motivation to even talk to them
SixString
(1,057 posts)by supporting the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, continuing the deregulation of the financial sector through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the repeal of the GlassSteagall Act, and implementing cuts to the welfare state through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.[74][76][77] The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administration differs from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States
Cary
(11,746 posts)So you consider modern mainstream neoclassical synthesis, salt water to be "neomiberal?"
The misuse and abuse of this term is what happens when low information ideological extremists get together and disregard reality.
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)in order to be applied to certain political figures.
The neoliberalism of the Clinton Administrationdiffers from that of Reagan, as the Clinton Administration purged neoliberalism of neoconservative positions on militarism, family values, opposition to multiculturalism and neglect of ecological issues ."
If your policy "purges" the major elements of a theory, then you are not a practitioner of that theory.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It's become used as a term to describe people/policies who are socially liberal but who also trust in the power of free market economics. So basically Clinton, Blair and the modern Democratic establishment.
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)If you're not sure who qualifies, watch for clues such as DWS' wet kisses for payday lenders, or dig deeper at OpenSecrets.org and compare to actual votes.
It's Citizens United's world now, so it's easy to grow complacent, but I think we shouldn't help normaluze the buying and selling of legislation.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
m-lekktor This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,736 posts)Imagine Democratic candidates reciting the usual mantra of spending tax dollars for public infra-structure. All good. But an analysis of the execution of the money spending tells a different story. Let's see what happens when Federal highways are the objective.
Roads and highways cross several county and municipal borders. Federal money that goes into the state and local level becomes a corrupting factor as locals use the money to reinforce their own social networks. In other words, you put big money into a Republican county and it will be spent on currying a support group or reinforcing cronyism. People want a share of the loot and they will show their loyalty by providing services in an inappropriate manner. That means helping disseminate misinformation and bullying people who are smart enough to see through the lies.
You look even closer and you will see that the people who are getting the construction approvals all hail from the same "civic" organizations, or are party loyalists. In other words, some of that money is going to the donor class.
Neo-Liberals are as much about cronyism as Republicans. They just have a better pitch.
We have a few high profile Neo-liberals in Central Florida. Not by accident, their political objectives will lead to personal gain. Some are more obvious than others. If you look close at their financial portfolio you might find that they are also profiting from people's misery or misfortune.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)and his ilk in order to damage the party. People like him use it to create division by making it a rally cry for LIV's.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
lapucelle
(18,275 posts)and replacing it with "individual responsibility".
In other words, neoliberals do not believe that it takes a village to raise a child.
JI7
(89,252 posts)RandiFan1290
(6,237 posts)'Quick, get them fighting amongst themselves again!'
Matthew28
(1,798 posts)The rich can rule over you and money is the main driver of society...No government enforcing the lower classes rights and life is hell if you're not part of that very small upper class.
That is what neo liberals push.