Neoliberalism the ideology at the root of all our problems

[Pirocco]

Where does that label "neoliberalism" come from?
As far as I know, nobody, no group, no politician, no party, names itself as such.

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism the Mont Pelerin Society it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as "a kind of neoliberal international": a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement's rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way among American apostles such as Milton Friedman to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.

Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

I can't help the feeling that you read until you reach a word you have strong beliefs about, and then stop reading.

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.

 

[bordsilver]

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

Need something like this:

Policy -
Abolish Reserve Bank
Abolish all govt. guarantees to any and all in the private sector ie. Banks...

Plus removing government-mandated fiat currency monopoly in favour of sound money.

To be clearer, there is a mismatch between the blurb accompanying Hudson's book (copied below) and the interview linked at post #2.

How financial parasites and debt destroy the global economy. Professor Hudson continues the discussion on the financialization of capital and its global effects. KILLING THE HOST exposes how finance, insurance, and real estate (the FIRE sector) have gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments. The FIRE sector is responsible for today's economic polarization (the 1% vs. the 99%) via favored tax status that inflates real estate prices while deflating the "real" economy of labor and production. The Great 2008 Bailout saved the banks but not the economy, and plunged the U.S., Irish, Latvian and Greek economies into debt deflation and austerity. This book describes how the phenomenon of debt deflation imposes austerity on the U.S. and European economies, siphoning wealth and income upward to the financial sector while impoverishing the middle class.

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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.

I couldn't see any. fiatphoney is in favour of government subsidies to private companies however.

http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-909569.html#p909569

 

[bordsilver]

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.

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).

Welfare disbanded in favour of the first $15,000 wage paid by the govt to any sole trader enterprise, with an additional amount per child/student under 18yo. A fair minimum hourly rate remains, as does all shift allowances and penalties. A minimum of 38hrs per week to be worked before stay at home parent can directly receive $15,000 payment paid through the aforementioned employer at govt's expense.
Furthermore support for all mums to participate in this wage by way of free Child Care placement in 'average' suburbs where housing is deemed 'affordable'. Ie no free ride for affluent suburbs and executive style homes.
Appropriate volunteering opportunities for said minimum income will be made available for all others, relative to age and ability. Fostering a sense of community enrichment and participation, not welfare.

 

[fiatphoney]

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

Need something like this:

Policy -
Abolish Reserve Bank
Abolish all govt. guarantees to any and all in the private sector ie. Banks...

Plus removing government-mandated fiat currency monopoly in favour of sound money.

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.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

SStackers has become a dismal place to discuss anything of value and depth.

Too many inane memes attacking the personalities of individuals as opposed to their ideas you think?

 

[bordsilver]

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

Need something like this:

Policy -
Abolish Reserve Bank
Abolish all govt. guarantees to any and all in the private sector ie. Banks...

Plus removing government-mandated fiat currency monopoly in favour of sound money.

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.

 

[Peter]

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.

 

[southerncross]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk[/youtube]

 

[bordsilver]

Oxfam, the British charity, released a study this week purporting to show that eight people have the same combined wealth as 50 percent of the world.

They pull stuff like this every year, and every year sober people try in vain to point out the report's methodological problems, while hysterics wave the report in everyone's face.

As the Telegraph pointed out, if we are to believe the method employed in this report, a Chinese peasant with no debt is richer than (for example) a Western college student.

Oh, really? So we'd all rather be Chinese peasants than Western college students? We're supposed to act as if the Chinese peasant's rather lower earning potential is irrelevant to evaluating his economic position? The whole thing is ridiculous. But it's the only way to make these lurid numbers work.

Personally, I don't care about inequality at all. I've talked about it quite a bit on the Tom Woods Show and with Bob Murphy on our weekly podcast, Contra Krugman, so I won't give you my whole spiel here.

I'll just say this: the poor are wealthier than they've ever been, and the worst material indignities continue to diminish all over the world.

My favorite response to this Oxfam foolishness was Johan Norberg's. He wrote: "If we don't end neoliberalism we'll see more of what happened in the last 25 years, warns Oxfam."

He then produced this chart:

Boom.

 

[mmm....shiney!]