Again: as far as I know, nobody, no group, no politician, no party, names itself as such. All there is in your text, is a claim that an individual named Friedman named himself as such in 1951. Yet, the term is used up to present day all the way by third parties naming selected others as such. So one could conclude here that the term "neoliberal" only exists in a criticaster (ie third parties) club.
Defend Hudson then instead of making assumptions about my comprehension skills. There is no 1%, this is not a free-market, the government has not passed economic planning onto the banks, there is still regulation of the financial industry even if it is worthless and creates more problems than it seeks to prevent eg Glass-Steagall, the free-market is not based on "trickle-down" economics as such a concept doesn't exist etc. All I am seeing are personal attacks, inane memes and trolls. Post something substantial that you understand that counters what I've written if you have a different opinion to mine. As a start: Who are the 1%? Name them. In the face of the overwhelming evidence that governments interfere in markets on a daily basis via legislation, regulations, policy decisions, spending programs, media bulletins and tweets etc, explain how Hudson can argue that we live in a free-market. Provide any proof that government regulations of the financial and banking industry are absent. Explain how banks have become responsible for making the economic planning decisions, and while you're at it, provide a rationale for why governments should be responsible for making economic decisions. Cite economic theorists that promote trickle-down economics.
To be clearer, there is a mismatch between the blurb accompanying Hudson's book (copied below) and the interview linked at post #2. On the face of it, I agree with the underlying issues that are discussed in this blurb about Hudson's book. Consequently I reposted fiatphoney's proposed policies (which I agree with) along with an extra one. There is a disjoint however between the book blurb and the interview however. Fundamentally I believe that he is attacking crony capitalism (crapitalism) and most of us would 100% agree with that. However, rather than recognising that the illegitimate use/abuse of authority is what enables crapitalism (via regulatory capture, outright corruption or just plain incompetence), he seems to believe that the solution is more authority as though the problems of regulatory capture, outright corruption or plain incompetence will suddenly disappear.
I couldn't see any. fiatphoney is in favour of government subsidies to private companies however. http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-909569.html#p909569
They're his first ones in his opening post. Note that his govt subsidies to private companies is a bit more nuanced as it also replaces all welfare. The exact policy proposal is a bit hard to understand though as he chucks in something about stay-at-home parents having to work 38hrs (which presumably means that they aren't stay-at-home parents by definition) and some strange coupling of payment to sole traders if they pay their staff penalty rates and that volunteer workers will also get paid (which presumably means that, by definition, they aren't volunteers and are instead public servants on a pissy wage).
If this (3rd) policy was taken there are implementation challenges. Steve Keen gets it wrong as good as anyone writing this off as a solution, fearing consequent austerity effect. His answer is debt, debt and more debt. Call it QE for the people call it anything as long as it is more debt followed by mega debt. Potential solutions got nothing to say like lots of others round here. SStackers has become a dismal place to discuss anything of value and depth.
Now I'm confused. You yourself said (in various ways) that you were in favour of sound money. Are you saying that you aren't in favour of it or just that "there are implementation challenges"? If the latter then there was a thread on here a few years ago that showed a relatively simple path forward that would overcome a lot of the implementation issues.
Eight billionaires 'as rich as world's poorest half' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38613488 It was still the case that the world's richest 1% had as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, Oxfam said.
