= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cameroncowan comments on Open thread, 25-31 August 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (227)
Post-neoliberialism is the economic theories and policies that are coming out of the neoliberal (think Milton Friedman) economics of the mid 20th century. This is most pronounced in South America where Neoliberal thinking as proposed by the Chicago School (Milton Friedman and company) was most widely practiced. Many of these governments are trying to balance the need of industry and companies to support the countries they do business in as well as provide for growth and jobs thereby. They are trying to balance the socialist past with free markets and globalization. So this article will address common theories and their theorists, policies, and other decisions being made in regards to the move away from Neoliberal economic philosophy.
Do you actually mean "coming out of" or do you mean "expected to replace"? Because economic theories coming out of neoliberal economics would probably be called "neoliberal".
Anywhere other than Chile?
All in all you seem to talking about economic theories of development. There are a lot of those. Why do you think it's useful to stick a "post-neoliberal" moniker on them, especially given that Wikipedia seems to think that "neoliberal" is a pejorative term used mostly by people who don't like markets?
Perú and Colombia for the last couple decades.
Any links or other evidence that Peru and Colombia were practicing specifically neoliberalism and not just sane policy (e.g. based on the idea that "markets work pretty well most of the time, better than the alternatives, anyway")?
Assorted links:
http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/709
http://colombiajournal.org/colombias-neoliberal-madness.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/06/colombia-amoral-development-uribe
http://www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/1/20061/dancourt.pdf
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/peru-archives-76/4956-peru-passes-a-packet-of-neoliberal-reforms-erodes-environmental-protections-and-labor-rights
http://citizenspress.org/editorials/neoliberalism-in-latin-america
Incidentally, we appear to have very different ideas of what constitutes sane policy. I support state control over essential services (education, healthcare, agriculture, energy) and strong regulations for everything else.
Ah, I see.
The US is a neoliberal country, then, is it?
It's very difficult to give an answer. For example, drug and food safety regulations are stricter in the U.S. than in Colombia (drugs are sold here which the FDA wouldn't poke with a ten-meter-long stick). The U.S. subsidizes its own farmers while discouraging its trade partners from doing so. Its minimum wage, albeit heavily criticized, is three times that of Colombia. On the other hand, the U.S. finds itself in the indefensible position of being the only first-world country without universal healthcare, while Colombia has mandatory vacations, paid sick days, and better unionization.
The difficulty suggests to me that you concept of neoliberalism is not well-defined.
But, frankly, it looks to me like you're treating it as "not socialism".
And I still have no idea what post-neoliberalism is.
If you would ask whether the US is a conservative country, answering isn't easy either. That doesn't mean that "conservative" is a word without meaning.
One of the points of the Washington Consensus is "Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;"
The US themselves doesn't manage to muster the political will to cut agricultural subsidies themselves but that doesn't mean that it doesn't use institutions such as the IMF to pressure other countries into cutting agricultural subsidies.
The word neoliberalism came up for policies that the US pushed in Latin America. Often against the local democratic will.
Socialism is in it's nature for open borders. "The Internationale" calls for uniting different people. Neoliberalism is similar. It wants to get rid of borders.
Treating corporations as people who can sue states in Investor-state dispute settlement proceedings is part of what neoliberalism is about. Clauses that were put into law in the US through trade agreements instead of the normal democratic process.
If you would ask Ron Paul about Investor-state dispute settlement I'm pretty sure that he would reject the idea because it means that states give up part of their sovereignty. As a result Ron Paul is no neoliberal. Ron Paul is also for free trade but he was a very different idea of what free trade is supposed to mean then the neoliberals.
I don't know his position on that issue, but he's certainly in favor of people suing government agencies that he believes have abused their power.
What "sane" happens to mean depends a lot on who's judging.
The IMF certainly pushed Latin American countries towards adopting neoliberal policies that they otherwise wouldn't have implemented.
True.
That happens a lot when you want to borrow other people's money :-)
As far as I can make out, the "post-" prefix in words such as postneoliberal, postcolonial, postmodern, etc. means not merely "after", but also "in reaction or opposition to", with connotations of supercession of the old and bad by the superior new and good. Claiming the "post-" moniker for oneself is a way of linguistically framing the situation (that is, casting a magic spell) to define oneself into having the high moral ground.
Sure, but you're talking about verbal jiu-jitsu techniques, basically. However here I just don't know which meaning the OP wants to associate with the label "post-liberal". There are a lot of ways the "superior new and good" can play out.
So is Friedman and the Chicago School supposed to be Neoliberal, or Post Neoliberal?
Milton Friedman would be neoliberal.