= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
polymathwannabe 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)
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.
Ron Paul generally votes against Free Trade treaties because they mean giving up sovereignty. He certainly thinks that it's alright when the supreme court takes down a law for being unconstitutional but that's not what happens in Investor-state dispute settlement.
This is not about suing government agencies for violating the law. It's about suing states for having laws that go against things written down in a free trade treaty in secret international courts without juries. The Canadian government thought that a pesticide from Dow was harmful so they forbid it. Then Investor-state dispute settlement allowed Dow to sue over the lost sales.
Ron Paul also favors states rights which don't exist when some international court can simply punish a state for it's policy decisions that are in agreement with the state constitution and law.
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 :-)