What is Neoliberalism? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 03-11-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

View: Neoliberalism and Higher Education
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

Neoliberalism and Higher Education
March 8, 2009, 10:00 pm
Neoliberalism and Higher Education

I’ve been asking colleagues in several departments and disciplines whether they’ve ever come across the term “neoliberalism” and whether they know what it means. A small number acknowledged having heard the word; a very much smaller number ventured a tentative definition.

I was asking because I had been reading essays in which the adjective neoliberal was routinely invoked as an accusation, and I had only a sketchy notion of what was intended by it. When one of these essays cited my recent writings on higher education as a prime example of “neoliberal ideology” (Sophia McClennen, “Neoliberalism and the Crisis of Intellectual Engagement,” in Works and Days, volumes 26-27, 2008-2009), I thought I’d better learn more.

What I’ve learned (and what some readers of this column no doubt already knew) is that neoliberalism is a pejorative way of referring to a set of economic/political policies based on a strong faith in the beneficent effects of free markets. Here is an often cited definition by Paul Treanor: “Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods and services . . . and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs.” (“Neoliberalism: Origins, Theory, Definition.”)

In a neoliberal world, for example, tort questions — questions of negligence law — are thought of not as ethical questions of blame and restitution (who did the injury and how can the injured party be made whole?), but as economic questions about the value to someone of an injury-producing action relative to the cost to someone else adversely affected by that same action. It may be the case that run-off from my factory kills the fish in your stream; but rather than asking the government to stop my polluting activity (which would involve the loss of jobs and the diminishing of the number of market transactions), why don’t you and I sit down and figure out if more wealth is created by my factory’s operations than is lost as a consequence of their effects?

As Ronald Coase put it in his classic article, “The Problem of Social Cost” (Journal of Law and Economics, 1960): “The question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible?” If the answer is more value would be lost if my factory were closed, then the principle of the maximization of wealth and efficiency directs us to a negotiated solution: you allow my factory to continue to pollute your stream and I will compensate you or underwrite the costs of your moving the stream elsewhere on your property, provided of course that the price I pay for the right to pollute is not greater than the value produced by my being permitted to continue.

Notice that “value” in this example (which is an extremely simplified stand-in for infinitely more complex transactions) is an economic, not an ethical word, or, rather, that in the neoliberal universe, ethics reduces to calculations of wealth and productivity. Notice too that if you and I proceed (as market ethics dictate) to work things out between us — to come to a private agreement — there will be no need for action by either the government or the courts, each of which is likely to muddy the waters (in which the fish will still be dying) by introducing distracting moral or philosophical concerns, sometimes referred to as “market distortions.”

Whereas in other theories, the achieving of a better life for all requires a measure of state intervention, in the polemics of neoliberalism (elaborated by Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek and put into practice by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), state interventions — governmental policies of social engineering — are “presented as the problem rather than the solution” (Chris Harman, “Theorising Neoliberalism,” International Socialism Journal, December 2007).

The solution is the privatization of everything (hence the slogan “let’s get governments off our backs”), which would include social security, health care, K-12 education, the ownership and maintenance of toll–roads, railways, airlines, energy production, communication systems and the flow of money. (This list, far from exhaustive, should alert us to the extent to which the neoliberal agenda has already succeeded.)

The assumption is that if free enterprise is allowed to make its way into every corner of human existence, the results will be better overall for everyone, even for those who are temporarily disadvantaged, let’s say by being deprived of their fish.

The objection (which I am reporting, not making) is that in the passage from a state in which actions are guided by an overarching notion of the public good to a state in which individual entrepreneurs “freely” pursue their private goods, values like morality, justice, fairness, empathy, nobility and love are either abandoned or redefined in market terms.

Short-term transactions-for-profit replace long-term planning designed to produce a more just and equitable society. Everyone is always running around doing and acquiring things, but the things done and acquired provide only momentary and empty pleasures (shopping, trophy houses, designer clothing and jewelry), which in the end amount to nothing. Neoliberalism, David Harvey explains, delivers a “world of pseudo-satisfactions that is superficially exciting but hollow at its core.” (”A Brief History of Neoliberalism.”)

Harvey and the other critics of neoliberalism explain that once neoliberal goals and priorities become embedded in a culture’s way of thinking, institutions that don’t regard themselves as neoliberal will nevertheless engage in practices that mime and extend neoliberal principles — privatization, untrammeled competition, the retreat from social engineering, the proliferation of markets. These are exactly the principles and practices these critics find in the 21st century university, where (according to Henry Giroux) the “historical legacy” of the university conceived “as a crucial public sphere” has given way to a university “that now narrates itself in terms that are more instrumental, commercial and practical.” (“Academic Unfreedom in America,” in Works and Days.)

This new narrative has been produced (and necessitated) by the withdrawal of the state from the funding of its so-called public universities. If the percentage of a state’s contribution to a college’s operating expenses falls from 80 to 10 and less (this has been the relentless trajectory of the past 40 years) and if, at the same time, demand for the “product” of higher education rises and the cost of delivering that product (the cost of supplies, personnel, information systems, maintenance, construction, insurance, security) skyrockets, a huge gap opens up that will have to be filled somehow.

Faced with this situation universities have responded by (1) raising tuition, in effect passing the burden of costs to the students who now become consumers and debt-holders rather than beneficiaries of enlightenment (2) entering into research partnerships with industry and thus courting the danger of turning the pursuit of truth into the pursuit of profits and (3) hiring a larger and larger number of short-term, part-time adjuncts who as members of a transient and disposable workforce are in no position to challenge the university’s practices or agitate for an academy more committed to the realization of democratic rather than monetary goals. In short , universities have embraced neoliberalism.

Meanwhile, even those few faculty members with security of employment do their bit for neoliberalism when they retire to their professional enclaves and churn out reams of scholarship (their equivalent of capital) that is increasingly specialized and without a clear connection to the public interest: “[F]aculty have progressively . . . favored professionalism over social responsibility and have . . . refused to take positions on controversial issues”; as a result they have “become disconnected from political agency and thereby incapable of taking a political stand” (McClennen, Works and Days).

Of course that’s what I urge — not an inability to take political stands, but a refraining from doing so in the name of academic responsibility — and it now becomes clear (even to me) why McLennen would see in what I write an implicit support for the neoliberization of academic life.

When I say to my fellow academics “aim low” and stick to your academic knitting or counsel do your job and don’t try to do someone else’s or warn against the presumption of trying to fashion a democratic citizenry or save the world, I am encouraging (or so McLennen says) a hunkering down in the private spaces of an academic workplace detached from the world’s problems.

And when I define academic freedom as the freedom to do the academic job, not the freedom to expand it to the point where its goals are infinite, my stance “forecloses the possibility of civic engagement and democratic action.” (McClennen)

That’s not quite right. I don’t foreclose the possibility; I just want to locate it outside the university and the classroom. But for McClennen, Giroux, Harvey and many others, this is a distinction without a difference, for the result of what I advocate would still be faculty members who are “models of moral indifference and civic spectatorship,” at least when they’re being faculty members. (Henry Giroux and Susan Searls Giroux, “Take Back Higher Education.”)

By defining academic freedom narrowly, as a concept tied to a guild and responsive only to its interests, I am said to ignore the responsibility academics have to freedom everywhere, not only in the classroom or in the research library but in the society at large and indeed in the entire world. In the view of the critics of the neoliberal university, a limiting definition of academic freedom forfeits the good that academics, highly trained and articulate as they are, might do if they took a stand against injustice and unfreedom wherever they are found.

That line of reasoning leads directly to the academic left’s support for the boycott of Israeli academics, an issue I shall take up in my next column.

I have a hard time with this NEO prefix when affixed to words, especially in the context to politics. Mostly my problem is that the prefix doesn't seem consistent. Neoconservative and newliberalism seem to be far removed and not meaning anything close to the root words.

I've read this and researched this, and I still don't seem to have a solid understanding as to what neoliberalism means. Each time I see it, it is explained in concepts that I seem to lump parts that I agree with and parts I disagree with and parts that change from individual who is defining it.

Thus I find it a very empty word.

What does it mean to you?

Charlatan · 03-11-2009, 04:20 PM

Neoliberalism to me is:

* the transfer of public institutions and funds to private hands
* lowering of tax rates
* vast deregulation of trade, environmental, finance, consumer protection, etc.

All of this is positioned in that it will grow the economy and create wealth but what it really does is create a situation where private wealth can grow at the expense of public wealth, health, safety and prosperity. The negative impact of these policies can be seen around the world.

Willravel · 03-11-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I have a hard time with this NEO prefix when affixed to words, especially in the context to politics. Mostly my problem is that the prefix doesn't seem consistent. Neoconservative and newliberalism seem to be far removed and not meaning anything close to the root words.

The "liberal" in neoliberal is referring to laissez-faire liberalism (market liberalism), or individual freedom, the free market, and small government, especially on the federal level. It doesn't mean the same thing as say social liberalism, in fact I'd say it's the opposite.

Like "conservative", "libera"l hasn't always meant the same thing.

snowy · 03-11-2009, 05:16 PM

I read this article as well, and I actually had a discussion last week with a student about what it meant. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining the concept, so I'm pleased with myself. And will, you'll be happy to hear we've also had several discussions about how the meaning given to certain labels has changed over time (starting with two familiar labels to the students, Democrat and Republican).

It's not a word I like. I think people think they know what it means, but they don't. They presume it means one thing when in fact it means quite another; it sort of allows the ideology that follows the term to slide under the radar. I wish we could start using a different term for the same concept, so that it might be more clear, and so that people might think about its meaning more.

Willravel · 03-11-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowy

And will, you'll be happy to hear we've also had several discussions about how the meaning given to certain labels has changed over time (starting with two familiar labels to the students, Democrat and Republican).

I am indeed! I think we should abandon "liberal" and "conservative" for a few hundred years. It's bad enough that we have people polarizing their principles in order to beat the phantom "other side", but to have the labels of a given set of principles shift so often is just inane.

ObieX · 03-11-2009, 06:19 PM

I was under the impression that the term "neoliberal" was created by Fox News and/or the previous white house administration, because they were getting tired of being called "neoconservatives" and the negative connotation tagged on to it. They started floating "neoliberal" as a new term in an "I'm rubber and you're glue" manner. I don't think they could make a go of it, which is why it hasn't really been heard much and no one really knows what it means.

Willravel · 03-11-2009, 06:31 PM

The term is older than Fox News by about 20 years.

ObieX · 03-11-2009, 07:02 PM

I've heard of the term being used in other countries before, with various meanings depending on location. But i hadn't really heard it applied in the US until recently and always with a negative connotation. Up until then i'd just heard regular old "liberal" somehow being used negatively. When used in such a way i have only heard it in republican talking points used by the previous administration and people they paid to push their agenda on television. There was never an explanation when it was used and it was always used as a bash (as "neocon" had been).

roachboy · 03-12-2009, 07:35 AM

the definition that fish more or less hides in the middle of his article isn't bad.
the confusion comes in that he moves from a general definition to a series of statements about the ways in which neoliberal ways of thinking have been picked up within universities. in this respect, he's a pretty typical academic who tends to substitute the situation in academic-land for the world in general.

the confusion that arises in the states about the category "liberal" is particular to here and is a trace of the fact (so far as i know) that it is a european name. in the states, this ideology doesn't have a consistent name: "market fundamentalism" "the washington consensus" "market capitalism" "laissez-faire capitalism" all more or less equivalent to it.

the curious feature of the american terminologies is their narrowness--it is as if capitalism was separate from everything else, floating around on it's own out there somewhere. neoliberalism has the advantage of capturing something of capitalism as a mode of production, so includes ideologies and the ways in which they are repeated and/or reproduced and/or performed.

this is of a piece with the ways in which any number of subsidiary questions are framed.
this is an interesting little essay on the dis-framing of the question of deregulation in the us context, what it is, how it works etc.:

http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/baker.php

flstf · 03-12-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Neoliberalism to me is:

* the transfer of public institutions and funds to private hands
* lowering of tax rates
* vast deregulation of trade, environmental, finance, consumer protection, etc.

All of this is positioned in that it will grow the economy and create wealth but what it really does is create a situation where private wealth can grow at the expense of public wealth, health, safety and prosperity. The negative impact of these policies can be seen around the world.

This reads like conservative talking points from Fox News. Maybe I'll have to modify my understanding of conservative and liberal.

Charlatan · 03-12-2009, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

This reads like conservative talking points from Fox News. Maybe I'll have to modify my understanding of conservative and liberal.

If you read roachboy's post above it should help you out.

dippin · 03-13-2009, 01:28 AM

As someone who has used "neoliberal" as part of titles of more than a couple of articles and conference presentations, I think I can chime in here.

Liberal in the contemporary American political jargon refers to social liberals who are typically associated with the left and the democratic party. But in the more traditional sense, liberalism refers to what many Americans call "classic liberalism" nowadays: economic liberalism based on free markets and such.

Now, why is it NEOliberalism?

From the late 19th century until the great depression, the world was very "liberal" in terms of its economics. "Free" trade was the norm (international trade as a share of the world economy reached a peak prior to 1930 that was only achieved again about 10 years ago), most basic industries and services were privately owned and operated, the welfare state was small or non existant, and monetary policy was wholly determined by the gold standard.

With the great depression and WWII, most Western nations were part of the Bretton Woods accords. These accords created the IMF and the World Bank, which were very different at their inception than what they are today. Instead of exchange rates being determined by market forces through the gold standard, exchange rates were fixed. To control them, countries could implement capital controls, that is, controls that prevented or allowed foreign money from entering and leaving a nation. On top of this, provisions were made to allow nations to use expansionist monetary policies to fight recessions and such.

On top of this, many nations also instituted higher trade tariffs. Following WWII many basic services were either nationalized, or, in case they were created by the state in the first place, not privatized. Welfare states expanded.

Starting in the 70s, with Nixon, then the OPEC oil embargo, stagflation, and so on, many of these things started to come apart. Hence the NEO part of neoliberalism.
Nations were strapped for funds, and privatized industries. In some places (but less than generally thought), welfare programs were reduced.

Most importantly, however, was the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. Currencies began being traded in the open market, with exchange rates set that way. Most nations did away with capital controls. In order to fight stagflation, monetary policy was contractionary. Deregulation soon followed.

In the end, neoliberalism represented the belief that the solution to market imperfections as they existed before was more markets being created. The solution to uncertainty regarding future exchange rates was not fixed exchange rates anymore, but buying and selling options contracts. The solution to uncertainties regarding crops and harvest was not government intervention to assuage supply crises, but insurance markets and premium markets. The solution to financial institutions going broke was not increased govt. intervention through the FDIC, but insurance and derivative markets where companies could insure themselves against risk. In short, the belief was that, as long as markets were complete, stability would ensue.

That is how the derivatives market grew to be so enormous.

snowy · 03-13-2009, 07:26 AM

Great post, dippin.

Cynthetiq · 03-13-2009, 07:41 AM

When you say industries were privatized can you give me some examples? I'm understanding that power utilities are an industry, those recently were privatized. I am against such a change since a I see it a basic need like gas and water. It should cover it's operational costs and not make a substantial profit or if it does it is to increase and care for the infrastructure of its system. Is this the same things that were originally nationalized in your post above?

Poppinjay · 03-13-2009, 08:13 AM

Dippin wins my award as most useful award appreciating an economist.

But most useless because it comes from me. I'm stupid.

But appreciated because he got the whole Bretton Woods thing, and he's really smart. My endorsement should not be seen as a dissent from his great post.

Lyndon LaRouche ran in 2004 under the theme "A New Bretton Woods". He was a nut, but at least he educated 1 out of every 80 citizens on that style of economy.

By the way, he's declared war on England. Ready to fight?

There are a few (very few) things he's had some interesting ideas on. And a big load he's wrong on.

Tully Mars · 03-13-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

When you say industries were privatized can you give me some examples? I'm understanding that power utilities are an industry, those recently were privatized. I am against such a change since a I see it a basic need like gas and water. It should cover it's operational costs and not make a substantial profit or if it does it is to increase and care for the infrastructure of its system. Is this the same things that were originally nationalized in your post above?

How about private prisons?

Cynthetiq · 03-13-2009, 08:19 AM

aye... yes, I'm not for those either. the government has some responsibility to it's citizens and that is one of them... hmmm this seems like an idea for a good thread.

dippin · 03-13-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

When you say industries were privatized can you give me some examples? I'm understanding that power utilities are an industry, those recently were privatized. I am against such a change since a I see it a basic need like gas and water. It should cover it's operational costs and not make a substantial profit or if it does it is to increase and care for the infrastructure of its system. Is this the same things that were originally nationalized in your post above?

In the US, things were a bit more complicated than elsewhere because several companies were chartered by the state, funded by the state, but run as private companies. Think Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or most of the original railroad companies, or canals. Of the things that were public, most of them were owned at the city or state level. As such, privatization was an uneven process. Some cities and states sold companies off pretty quickly, but others may never have done so.

A few examples of notable privatizations are the Japan Post office, the Japanese telephone company (which had a national monopoly), British Telecom (which also had a monopoly), and so on. Many telecom, transport, oil and gas, and banking companies were either created by the state or nationalized around WWII.

guy44 · 03-15-2009, 06:22 PM

What is neoliberalism?

Dead.

I kid, I kid. My understanding is that neoliberalism refers to the group of Democrats around the late 80s and early 90s who were generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Many of these guys and gals also displayed more rightward tendencies on foreign policy than most Democrats, although that wasn't a prerequisite of being a neoliberal. While Larry Summers is a famous neoliberal and currently in a very powerful position, I think they don't so much exist anymore as neoliberals and the so-called liberal hawks kind of merged at some point during the 90s to become Blue Dogs.

Of course, these are all pretty malleable terms that aren't clearly defined and your mileage with each will vary. Also, since "normal" macroeconomic fiscal policies don't really work so much within a recession, traditional neoliberal economic advice is kind of pointless at the moment.

Baraka_Guru · 03-15-2009, 07:03 PM

When I think of neoliberalism, I think of neoclassical economics vis-à-vis the Chicago School, which brought us such things as the efficient-market hypothesis.

Unfortunately, markets aren't as efficient as they'd hoped.

Oh, and neoliberalism brought us free trade.

Nice, eh?

03-11-2009, 04:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Neoliberalism to me is: * the transfer of public institutions and funds to private hands * lowering of tax rates * vast deregulation of trade, environmental, finance, consumer protection, etc. All of this is positioned in that it will grow the economy and create wealth but what it really does is create a situation where private wealth can grow at the expense of public wealth, health, safety and prosperity. The negative impact of these policies can be seen around the world. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-11-2009, 05:16 PM	#4 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I read this article as well, and I actually had a discussion last week with a student about what it meant. I think I did a pretty good job of explaining the concept, so I'm pleased with myself. And will, you'll be happy to hear we've also had several discussions about how the meaning given to certain labels has changed over time (starting with two familiar labels to the students, Democrat and Republican). It's not a word I like. I think people think they know what it means, but they don't. They presume it means one thing when in fact it means quite another; it sort of allows the ideology that follows the term to slide under the radar. I wish we could start using a different term for the same concept, so that it might be more clear, and so that people might think about its meaning more. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

03-11-2009, 06:19 PM	#6 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I was under the impression that the term "neoliberal" was created by Fox News and/or the previous white house administration, because they were getting tired of being called "neoconservatives" and the negative connotation tagged on to it. They started floating "neoliberal" as a new term in an "I'm rubber and you're glue" manner. I don't think they could make a go of it, which is why it hasn't really been heard much and no one really knows what it means. __________________ We Must Dissent.

03-11-2009, 07:02 PM	#8 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	I've heard of the term being used in other countries before, with various meanings depending on location. But i hadn't really heard it applied in the US until recently and always with a negative connotation. Up until then i'd just heard regular old "liberal" somehow being used negatively. When used in such a way i have only heard it in republican talking points used by the previous administration and people they paid to push their agenda on television. There was never an explanation when it was used and it was always used as a bash (as "neocon" had been). __________________ We Must Dissent.

03-12-2009, 07:35 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the definition that fish more or less hides in the middle of his article isn't bad. the confusion comes in that he moves from a general definition to a series of statements about the ways in which neoliberal ways of thinking have been picked up within universities. in this respect, he's a pretty typical academic who tends to substitute the situation in academic-land for the world in general. the confusion that arises in the states about the category "liberal" is particular to here and is a trace of the fact (so far as i know) that it is a european name. in the states, this ideology doesn't have a consistent name: "market fundamentalism" "the washington consensus" "market capitalism" "laissez-faire capitalism" all more or less equivalent to it. the curious feature of the american terminologies is their narrowness--it is as if capitalism was separate from everything else, floating around on it's own out there somewhere. neoliberalism has the advantage of capturing something of capitalism as a mode of production, so includes ideologies and the ways in which they are repeated and/or reproduced and/or performed. this is of a piece with the ways in which any number of subsidiary questions are framed. this is an interesting little essay on the dis-framing of the question of deregulation in the us context, what it is, how it works etc.: http://bostonreview.net/BR34.1/baker.php __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-12-2009 at 07:54 AM..

03-11-2009, 06:31 PM	#7 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The term is older than Fox News by about 20 years.

03-13-2009, 01:28 AM	#12 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	As someone who has used "neoliberal" as part of titles of more than a couple of articles and conference presentations, I think I can chime in here. Liberal in the contemporary American political jargon refers to social liberals who are typically associated with the left and the democratic party. But in the more traditional sense, liberalism refers to what many Americans call "classic liberalism" nowadays: economic liberalism based on free markets and such. Now, why is it NEOliberalism? From the late 19th century until the great depression, the world was very "liberal" in terms of its economics. "Free" trade was the norm (international trade as a share of the world economy reached a peak prior to 1930 that was only achieved again about 10 years ago), most basic industries and services were privately owned and operated, the welfare state was small or non existant, and monetary policy was wholly determined by the gold standard. With the great depression and WWII, most Western nations were part of the Bretton Woods accords. These accords created the IMF and the World Bank, which were very different at their inception than what they are today. Instead of exchange rates being determined by market forces through the gold standard, exchange rates were fixed. To control them, countries could implement capital controls, that is, controls that prevented or allowed foreign money from entering and leaving a nation. On top of this, provisions were made to allow nations to use expansionist monetary policies to fight recessions and such. On top of this, many nations also instituted higher trade tariffs. Following WWII many basic services were either nationalized, or, in case they were created by the state in the first place, not privatized. Welfare states expanded. Starting in the 70s, with Nixon, then the OPEC oil embargo, stagflation, and so on, many of these things started to come apart. Hence the NEO part of neoliberalism. Nations were strapped for funds, and privatized industries. In some places (but less than generally thought), welfare programs were reduced. Most importantly, however, was the end of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates. Currencies began being traded in the open market, with exchange rates set that way. Most nations did away with capital controls. In order to fight stagflation, monetary policy was contractionary. Deregulation soon followed. In the end, neoliberalism represented the belief that the solution to market imperfections as they existed before was more markets being created. The solution to uncertainty regarding future exchange rates was not fixed exchange rates anymore, but buying and selling options contracts. The solution to uncertainties regarding crops and harvest was not government intervention to assuage supply crises, but insurance markets and premium markets. The solution to financial institutions going broke was not increased govt. intervention through the FDIC, but insurance and derivative markets where companies could insure themselves against risk. In short, the belief was that, as long as markets were complete, stability would ensue. That is how the derivatives market grew to be so enormous.

03-13-2009, 07:26 AM	#13 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	Great post, dippin. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

03-13-2009, 07:41 AM	#14 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	When you say industries were privatized can you give me some examples? I'm understanding that power utilities are an industry, those recently were privatized. I am against such a change since a I see it a basic need like gas and water. It should cover it's operational costs and not make a substantial profit or if it does it is to increase and care for the infrastructure of its system. Is this the same things that were originally nationalized in your post above? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-13-2009, 08:13 AM	#15 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Dippin wins my award as most useful award appreciating an economist. But most useless because it comes from me. I'm stupid. But appreciated because he got the whole Bretton Woods thing, and he's really smart. My endorsement should not be seen as a dissent from his great post. Lyndon LaRouche ran in 2004 under the theme "A New Bretton Woods". He was a nut, but at least he educated 1 out of every 80 citizens on that style of economy. By the way, he's declared war on England. Ready to fight? There are a few (very few) things he's had some interesting ideas on. And a big load he's wrong on. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet Last edited by Poppinjay; 03-13-2009 at 08:16 AM..

03-13-2009, 08:19 AM	#17 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	aye... yes, I'm not for those either. the government has some responsibility to it's citizens and that is one of them... hmmm this seems like an idea for a good thread. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-15-2009, 06:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	What is neoliberalism? Dead. I kid, I kid. My understanding is that neoliberalism refers to the group of Democrats around the late 80s and early 90s who were generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Many of these guys and gals also displayed more rightward tendencies on foreign policy than most Democrats, although that wasn't a prerequisite of being a neoliberal. While Larry Summers is a famous neoliberal and currently in a very powerful position, I think they don't so much exist anymore as neoliberals and the so-called liberal hawks kind of merged at some point during the 90s to become Blue Dogs. Of course, these are all pretty malleable terms that aren't clearly defined and your mileage with each will vary. Also, since "normal" macroeconomic fiscal policies don't really work so much within a recession, traditional neoliberal economic advice is kind of pointless at the moment. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

03-15-2009, 07:03 PM	#20 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	When I think of neoliberalism, I think of neoclassical economics vis-à-vis the Chicago School, which brought us such things as the efficient-market hypothesis. Unfortunately, markets aren't as efficient as they'd hoped. Oh, and neoliberalism brought us free trade. Nice, eh? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot