First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply What Is Neoliberalism? Is it the same as A Free Market?
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 24 days ago
It seems to have a great deal to do with globalization, a term I initially scoffed at, but then realize that maybe you guys have a point, and that I was/am a fool. Apparently, it has to do with removing barriers to international trade, and basically matter of allowing the "Invisible hand" to guide us in the efficient allocation of resources such as money and such.

Does anyone care to enlighten me? I feel economics are a lot less politically polarized.

Here's a definition.


Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.\

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism


24942 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 23 days ago
We can talk about it. What do you think about it?
1194 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

It seems to have a great deal to do with globalization, a term I initially scoffed at, but then realize that maybe you guys have a point, and that I was/am a fool. Apparently, it has to do with removing barriers to international trade, and basically matter of allowing the "Invisible hand" to guide us in the efficient allocation of resources such as money and such.

Does anyone care to enlighten me? I feel economics are a lot less politically polarized.

Here's a definition.


Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.\

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism




Free trade is just part of neoliberalism. Free trade, while having many definitions, is usually universally accepted as the ability or concept wherein companies may function and be involved in transactions with other companies or individuals with little to no obstruction or regulation from a government. To some free trade means to be free from tax or at least liberated significantly from it. Regulation of course is a constant thorn in the side of business but few people actually propose a fully free trade system with no taxation or regulation as it is generally accepted some basics are required.

Neoliberalism however is more focused on the concept of freeing already controlled markets. Privatization of public services or productions is recognized as being the cornerstone of the philosophy. An example is that if you had a federal prison you would end that prison for a privately owned one instead. Another such example is having private roads, bus systems or water systems.

Austerity is also a large part of it which is simply where the government shrinks and costs the taxpayers less by reducing its expenditure.
37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

It seems to have a great deal to do with globalization, a term I initially scoffed at, but then realize that maybe you guys have a point, and that I was/am a fool. Apparently, it has to do with removing barriers to international trade, and basically matter of allowing the "Invisible hand" to guide us in the efficient allocation of resources such as money and such.

Does anyone care to enlighten me? I feel economics are a lot less politically polarized.

Here's a definition.


Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.\

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism




That is what NAFTA and TPP are about. Reallocating our factories and jobs, with all of the money those can generate, to other countries. Of course, that means that we have to absorb the poverty of those other countries. We give them our jobs, we get lower paying jobs and poverty in exchange. NAFTA has been doing this since Bill Clinton signed it into law. TPP is another treaty, like NAFTA, but it's with the countries around the Pacific Rim.
127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago
? I thought classic liberalism was the free market & and 'neo-liberalism' is what americans call liberalism?
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Kavalion wrote:

We can talk about it. What do you think about it?


I was actually a supporter to globalism, at least to what it sounds like. After all, no country is independent, and since we're all big one big world, I wonder why it is so important that the US workers had to benefit even if it means stymying "global progress". But I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Quite the opposite. Whilst many Republicans threw away through registration, I myself quit the Democrats. I should've foresaw it coming. In any case, I still think that we shouldn't strangle foreign trade. After all, it was a big part of why the great depression happened to an extent, plus, anime. Then you hear things like politicians being dictated by corporations to lessen restrictions, to the point that mini monopolies are formed. I accepted that this was a flaw to a path to a better world, but I don't know what to believe now. I am seeing less progress than I have ever seen, if the data is to be believed.


DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

It seems to have a great deal to do with globalization, a term I initially scoffed at, but then realize that maybe you guys have a point, and that I was/am a fool. Apparently, it has to do with removing barriers to international trade, and basically matter of allowing the "Invisible hand" to guide us in the efficient allocation of resources such as money and such. In any case, the dissolution of unions aren't something I agree with.

Does anyone care to enlighten me? I feel economics are a lot less politically polarized.

Here's a definition.


Neoliberalism, ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition. Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics. In particular, neoliberalism is often characterized in terms of its belief in sustained economic growth as the means to achieve human progress, its confidence in free markets as the most-efficient allocation of resources, its emphasis on minimal state intervention in economic and social affairs, and its commitment to the freedom of trade and capital.\

https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism




That is what NAFTA and TPP are about. Reallocating our factories and jobs, with all of the money those can generate, to other countries. Of course, that means that we have to absorb the poverty of those other countries. We give them our jobs, we get lower paying jobs and poverty in exchange. NAFTA has been doing this since Bill Clinton signed it into law. TPP is another treaty, like NAFTA, but it's with the countries around the Pacific Rim.

Trans Pacific Partnership and NA Free Trade Agreement? So shipping jobs overseas while the higher ups take cuts, all the while paying less in wages worldwide? What is your proposed solution?
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

An4rK wrote:

? I thought classic liberalism was the free market & and 'neo-liberalism' is what americans call liberalism?


I believe it is classical liberalism applied to the free market, revived from "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, in which raw, unfettered nature of the economic will overall increase wealth while properly doling out wealth as well as it is allowed. It is coined such for its revival in the 70s and such following periods the US period of Keynesian economics or something. Very popular among Objectivists (Rand's Followers) I imagine, alongside anarchists and libertarians.
37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Trans Pacific Partnership and NA Free Trade Agreement? So shipping jobs overseas while the higher ups take cuts, all the while paying less in wages worldwide? What is your proposed solution?


Trump already said it. Withdraw from the TPP talks, and renegotiate NAFTA, or exit from the treaty via a clause in the treaty that lets us off the hook. Trump said, global trade is A.O.K. with him, but it's got to be fair, a two way street. It can't just be about U.S. jobs leaving the country.
127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


An4rK wrote:

? I thought classic liberalism was the free market & and 'neo-liberalism' is what americans call liberalism?


I believe it is classical liberalism applied to the free market, revived from "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, in which raw, unfettered nature of the economic will overall increase wealth while properly doling out wealth as well as it is allowed. It is coined such for its revival in the 70s and such following periods the US period of Keynesian economics or something. Very popular among Objectivists (Rand's Followers) I imagine, alongside anarchists and libertarians.
Adam Smith? so the word 'liberalism' was coinded by the creator of capitalism himself?

so how come 'liberalism' came to have a left-wing connotation only in the US whereas all over the rest of the world 'liberal' still means right-wing/conservative?



btw Ayn Rand? wasn't much of a libertarian iirc (she was a social darwinist though)
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

An4rK wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


An4rK wrote:

? I thought classic liberalism was the free market & and 'neo-liberalism' is what americans call liberalism?


I believe it is classical liberalism applied to the free market, revived from "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, in which raw, unfettered nature of the economic will overall increase wealth while properly doling out wealth as well as it is allowed. It is coined such for its revival in the 70s and such following periods the US period of Keynesian economics or something. Very popular among Objectivists (Rand's Followers) I imagine, alongside anarchists and libertarians.
Adam Smith? so the word 'liberalism' was coinded by the creator of capitalism himself?

so how come 'liberalism' came to have a left-wing connotation only in the US whereas all over the rest of the world 'liberal' still means right-wing/conservative?



btw Ayn Rand? wasn't much of a libertarian iirc (she was a social darwinist though)


I don't know if he coined the term, perhaps it was John Locke.

She did strongly believe in the free market, and even lamented that the Libertarians stole her ideas. Except while the libertarian party may at time emphasize some restraint, she had utter disdain for anything with social in it, even basic social welfare. Bioshock the videogame does pretty well in creating a world where money talks as political clout.

I am not sure as to the politicized nature.
8498 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Trans Pacific Partnership and NA Free Trade Agreement? So shipping jobs overseas while the higher ups take cuts, all the while paying less in wages worldwide? What is your proposed solution?


Trump already said it. Withdraw from the TPP talks, and renegotiate NAFTA, or exit from the treaty via a clause in the treaty that lets us off the hook. Trump said, global trade is A.O.K. with him, but it's got to be fair, a two way street. It can't just be about U.S. jobs leaving the country.


So basically exit these partnerships in pursuit of regulating international trade with import taxes and such? I imagine there would be a middle ground that wouldn't lead to trade wars as one might accuse Trump of starting.
37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Trans Pacific Partnership and NA Free Trade Agreement? So shipping jobs overseas while the higher ups take cuts, all the while paying less in wages worldwide? What is your proposed solution?


Trump already said it. Withdraw from the TPP talks, and renegotiate NAFTA, or exit from the treaty via a clause in the treaty that lets us off the hook. Trump said, global trade is A.O.K. with him, but it's got to be fair, a two way street. It can't just be about U.S. jobs leaving the country.


So basically exit these partnerships in pursuit of regulating international trade with import taxes and such? I imagine there would be a middle ground that wouldn't lead to trade wars as one might accuse Trump of starting.


There was all kinds of world trade before globalization. Those were profitable times for those who knew how to buy and sell. Taxes and tariffs were a problem, but that didn't stop trade. If I recall, governments imposed tariffs on goods coming from countries that they had political trouble with. For (a made up) example, even though England and France fought all kinds of wars with each other, they still traded. The people probably found ways to get around the tariffs, perhaps by trading through Germany, or Spain.... (Or was that England and Spain that fought all kinds of wars with each other?)

As far as the U.S. and Mexico are concerned, I don't think we tariffed anything they sold to us, before NAFTA. Incidentally, folks have been saying that free and open trade meant trading across open boarders without extra taxation. However, NAFTA allowed for goods shipped from Mexico to come in, tax free, however, U.S. goods shipped to Mexico was taxed, but they don't call it a tax. They have another word for it.
24942 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I was actually a supporter to globalism, at least to what it sounds like. After all, no country is independent, and since we're all big one big world, I wonder why it is so important that the US workers had to benefit even if it means stymying "global progress". But I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Quite the opposite. Whilst many Republicans threw away through registration, I myself quit the Democrats. I should've foresaw it coming. In any case, I still think that we shouldn't strangle foreign trade. After all, it was a big part of why the great depression happened to an extent, plus, anime. Then you hear things like politicians being dictated by corporations to lessen restrictions, to the point that mini monopolies are formed. I accepted that this was a flaw to a path to a better world, but I don't know what to believe now. I am seeing less progress than I have ever seen, if the data is to be believed.


I guess the issue with global progress is that we can't control the policies of other countries (as much as we try). They can pull a lot of underhanded things to get a bigger piece of the pie. China expects its people to tolerate toxic air, for example. I don't know if you own a car, but we're required to get our emissions checked to make sure our vehicles aren't spewing out smoke here in the USA. We have a lot of laws in place to try to help protect clean air.

Should we lessen restrictions in the USA, in order to compete with China? Here's where we answer the question of why it's so important that US workers benefit. Because the alternative is stuff like accepting an abnormally high number of deaths from lung cancer, like in China. Killing US workers with toxic air. One of the more extreme examples, but I hope it illustrates the point. We do have to consider the well-being of US workers first, which means a more balanced approach to world trade. If you think about it, it would be possible to punish a country like China with a high tariff, then lift the tariff when they get their pollution under control. Possibly a better path to global progress than incentivizing the pollution with unfettered trade? So, neoliberalism has its issues. It seems to me, anyway.
37315 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 23 days ago

Kavalion wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
I was actually a supporter to globalism, at least to what it sounds like. After all, no country is independent, and since we're all big one big world, I wonder why it is so important that the US workers had to benefit even if it means stymying "global progress". But I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Quite the opposite. Whilst many Republicans threw away through registration, I myself quit the Democrats. I should've foresaw it coming. In any case, I still think that we shouldn't strangle foreign trade. After all, it was a big part of why the great depression happened to an extent, plus, anime. Then you hear things like politicians being dictated by corporations to lessen restrictions, to the point that mini monopolies are formed. I accepted that this was a flaw to a path to a better world, but I don't know what to believe now. I am seeing less progress than I have ever seen, if the data is to be believed.


I guess the issue with global progress is that we can't control the policies of other countries (as much as we try). They can pull a lot of underhanded things to get a bigger piece of the pie. China expects its people to tolerate toxic air, for example. I don't know if you own a car, but we're required to get our emissions checked to make sure our vehicles aren't spewing out smoke here in the USA. We have a lot of laws in place to try to help protect clean air.

Should we lessen restrictions in the USA, in order to compete with China? Here's where we answer the question of why it's so important that US workers benefit. Because the alternative is stuff like accepting an abnormally high number of deaths from lung cancer, like in China. Killing US workers with toxic air. One of the more extreme examples, but I hope it illustrates the point. We do have to consider the well-being of US workers first, which means a more balanced approach to world trade. If you think about it, it would be possible to punish a country like China with a high tariff, then lift the tariff when they get their pollution under control. Possibly a better path to global progress than incentivizing the pollution with unfettered trade? So, neoliberalism has its issues. It seems to me, anyway.


China is finally taking steps to do something about their pollution, but damn, I had no idea how bad it was....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/18/canada-is-selling-its-clean-air-to-china/

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/11/chinas-five-year-plan-to-radically-tighten-air-pollution-targets/
Posted 23 days ago , edited 23 days ago

An4rK wrote:

? I thought classic liberalism was the free market & and 'neo-liberalism' is what americans call liberalism?


You sir are correct

The Progressives tried to steal the word back in the 20s or thereabouts, when Progressive was getting to be known as a dirty word.

Now that liberal's getting to be a dirty word, back out with Progressive since most people forgot what either of them meant.

Its inconvenient when the core of what you're trying to represent is rotten and repressive in nature, and you keep having to change what its called after you've been run out of town.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.