Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world

[Belsnickel]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world?CMP=share_btn_fb

Providing without comment for the time being. It's in a section called The Long Read for a reason, but it's a good read.

[THE Bigzoman]

Linking Hayek to neoliberal and global trade and neoclassical theory is pretty laughable. Hayek would be more disappointed than happy if he lived to see global trade right now.

Competitive markets and world trade brought more winners than losers. The problem is that nobody gave a shit about the losers. It easy for someone to say "suck it up buttercup, society benefits from the technology, immigrants, and outsourcing taking your job!"when you're not the one being dragged to the alter.

[Dill]

(08-20-2017, 10:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world?CMP=share_btn_fb

Providing without comment for the time being. It's in a section called The Long Read for a reason, but it's a good read.

An excellent article. It's hard to put neoliberalism in a nutshell, but this is a pretty smooth and informative read.

This paragraph, alone, is a bit general.

In short, “neoliberalism” is not simply a name for pro-market policies, or for the compromises with finance capitalism made by failing social democratic parties. It is a name for a premise that, quietly, has come to regulate all we practise and believe: that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity.

But a few paragraphs later it is fleshed out with this:

What any person acquainted with history sees as the necessary bulwarks against tyranny and exploitation – a thriving middle class and civil sphere; free institutions; universal suffrage; freedom of conscience, congregation, religion and press; a basic recognition that the individual is a bearer of dignity – held no special place in Hayek’s thought. Hayek built into neoliberalism the assumption that the market provides all necessary protection against the one real political danger: totalitarianism. To prevent this, the state need only keep the market free.

This last is what makes neoliberalism “neo”. It is a crucial modification of the older belief in a free market and a minimal state, known as “classical liberalism”. In classical liberalism, merchants simply asked the state to “leave us alone” – to laissez-nous faire. Neoliberalism recognised that the state must be active in the organisation of a market economy. The conditions allowing for a free market must be won politically, and the state must be re-engineered to support the free market on an ongoing basis.

I pulled out these nuggets too.

It isn’t only that the free market produces a tiny cadre of winners and an enormous army of losers – and the losers, looking for revenge, have turned to Brexit and Trump. There was, from the beginning, an inevitable relationship between the utopian ideal of the free market and the dystopian present in which we find ourselves; between the market as unique discloser of value and guardian of liberty, and our current descent into post-truth and illiberalism.

From the Hayekian'Friedmanian perspective,

The internet is personal preference magnified by algorithm; a pseudo-public space that echoes the voice already inside our head. Rather than a space of debate in which we make our way, as a society, toward consensus, now there is a mutual-affirmation apparatus banally referred to as a “marketplace of ideas”. What looks like something public and lucid is only an extension of our own pre-existing opinions, prejudices and beliefs, while the authority of institutions and experts has been displaced by the aggregative logic of big data. When we access the world through a search engine, its results are ranked, as the founder of Google puts it, “recursively” – by an infinity of individual users functioning as a market, continuously and in real time.

I am still digesting all this, but thanks for posting it. This Metcalf guy is a masterful expositor of economic ideas and their policy consequences.   

[Dill]

(08-20-2017, 12:44 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Linking Hayek to neoliberal and global trade and neoclassical theory is pretty laughable. Hayek would be more disappointed than happy if he lived to see global trade right now.

Competitive markets and world trade brought more winners than losers. The problem is that nobody gave a shit about the losers. It easy for someone to say "suck it up buttercup, society benefits from  the technology, immigrants, and outsourcing taking your job!"when you're not the one being dragged to the alter.

Just curious Big. Why should Hayek's connection to neoliberalism be problematic?

[THE Bigzoman]

(08-23-2017, 06:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Just curious Big. Why should Hayek's connection to neoliberalism be problematic?

Well slow down a bit here.

I just said it was laughable to link the two. Never said it was problematic, whatever that means.

 Austrian Economics never gained a foothold in mainstream economics. Aside from that, Hayek would probably question whether or not international trade scene was actually competitive, and not just a firms from developed nations taking a disproportionate share of market power.

[Dill]

(08-25-2017, 11:13 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Well slow down a bit here.

I just said it was laughable to link the two. Never said it was problematic, whatever that means.

 Austrian Economics never gained a foothold in mainstream economics.  Aside from that, Hayek would probably question whether or not international trade scene was actually competitive, and not just a firms from developed nations taking a disproportionate share of market power.

"Problematic" in this case would mean that Metcalf's assertions about von Hayek's influence on contemporary neoliberalism are not born out by the record--by von Hayek's work, by the logic and practice of neoliberalism, by the people who acted upon what they thought were his economic ideas.

If you assert it is "laughable" to link von Hayek and neoliberalism, it appears you think such linkage is unwarranted--i.e., problematic.  The linkage could not be both laughable and Not problematic.

Von Hayek did not have to gain a foothold in mainstream economics if world leaders like Reagan and Thatcher, and their economists, thought von Hayek the man with the answers. 

I raised my question because it seems to me that Metcalf makes a pretty good case for von Hayek's influence and the congruence of his theories with those of neoliberal policies. Is there some point where Metcalf seems especially off in his analysis?  Just curious because I think neoliberalism well worth understanding/discussion.