[Le Rouge]

It seems that PoFo tends to attract persons opposed to neo-liberalism from both the right and the left. I wonder what the actual percentages are.

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer part of the control of the economy from public to the private sector, under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic indicators of the nation. The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's "Washington Consensus," a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

• Fiscal policy discipline;[clarification needed]
• Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies"[neutrality disputed]) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
  
• Tax reform– broadening the tax base[clarification needed] and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
  
• Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
  
• Competitive exchange rates;
  
• Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs;
  
• Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;[clarification needed]
  
• Privatization of state enterprises;This occurs not only in the sense of the transfer of companies from the public to the private sector, but also in the conversion of social rights into marketable objects. Health and education, traditionally considered to be citizens’ rights, become economic interests and, in many countries, are integrated into circuits of accumulation.
  
• Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
  
• Legal security for property rights; and,
  
• Financialization of capital.

[Nets]

Strongly positive on most points as outline there, except perhaps

# Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
# Competitive exchange rates;

[Captain Sam]

Slightly Negative.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I do however strongly believe that things like Health and Education should not be privatized. It only ends up in disaster for the people.

[ingliz]

Strongly negative

[Aesthetic]

Strongly negative. The fruits of capitalism are undeniable, but Neo-liberalism is almost a religion that would happily sacrifice our future for a bar of gold.

[Mazhi]

Strongly negative

[Dave]

Slightly negative

Neoliberalism gets it right on fiscal policy discipline and often on taxation policy, but its failure to understand differential patterns of growth, increasing returns to scale, and relative wealth (as opposed to absolute) make it a disaster on the matter of industrial policy.

As an ideology, its tendency to view man as an economic machine makes it a "dismal science" in the original sense Thomas Carlyle intended.

[FallenRaptor]

Strongly negative

[Plaro]

Strongly negative: Disaster for humanity.

[Dr House]

Strongly negative. While it does get a few things right (fiscal discipline, monetary policy and most deregulation), its a very poor understanding of the role of production in the economy, as well as its blind faith in free trade, make it an economic disaster. Few countries have met more than mild success after implementing neoliberal policies, and some (the US included) have met economic ruin.

[grassroots1]

Strongly Negative. Practically a front-ideology for American based multinational corporations, aside from RPA.

[Michaeluj]

Strongly Negative. Practically a front-ideology for American based multinational corporations, aside from RPA.

So I'm a face that was hired by a corporation(or I'm the corporation itself) trying to provide an ideology that I don't believe in?

Strongly positive, although I really don't disagree with what House and Dave provided as faults, except for this:

Few countries have met more than mild success after implementing neoliberal policies, and some (the US included) have met economic ruin.

This is a new argument, coming from you. I would've thought that your arguments that focus on Johnson and Kennedy and Keynes would've balanced that thought line away from you, but apparently not. Frankly, the government did not shrink in the US.

I always considered that people who blame neoliberalism for all of today's America's faults were just those who looked at the problem with glazed eyes and blind hatred in their soul.

[grassroots1]

No it's not that Mike, I just didn't think of you.

[Dave]

This is a new argument, coming from you. I would've thought that your arguments that focus on Johnson and Kennedy and Keynes would've balanced that thought line away from you, but apparently not. Frankly, the government did not shrink in the US.

I always considered that people who blame neoliberalism for all of today's America's faults were just those who looked at the problem with glazed eyes and blind hatred in their soul.

Neoliberal ideology contributed to unilateral tariff disarmament and a near total abandonment of industrial policy to the point where even the Pentagon is no longer overly concerned with domestic sourcing.

[Michaeluj]

Neoliberal ideology contributed to unilateral tariff disarmament and a near total abandonment of industrial policy to the point where even the Pentagon is no longer overly concerned with domestic sourcing.

Not the worst thing in the world, unless combined with large amounts of inflation, anti-industry laws and taxation, and an enormous amount of war. Simply put, while domestic spending would've helped, the lack of it was not the cause.

[Dave]

Unilateral tariff disarmament is a terrible thing because it allows economic competitors that practice strategic trade policy to target particular industries and erode our marketshare, or, worse, destroy that particular industry in our country (as happened for instance with electronics).

Your points about "inflation, anti-industry laws and taxation" are important, but as you yourself noted these were in combination with trade disarmament and an overall lack of an industrial policy. Many European nations suffer from "anti-industry laws" and high taxation, but due alert trade policy and coordinated industrial policies they have retained relatively more substantial industrial sectors which result in higher worker prosperity (even when not taking into account the more expansive social services available in Europe) and a superior foreign account. Several Asian nations have significantly higher levels of inflation but due to extreme industrial policies succeed regardless.

As for war, that's a multifaceted issue. The diversion of vast amounts of scientific and technical talent from civilian to defense applications is responsible for a substantial amount of America's loss of industrial competitiveness. On the other hand defense research has had numerous industrial successes, such as statistical quality control (abandoned after WW2 only to be taken up by...the Japanese), numerical control machine tools, soldering, composite materials, titanium working technology, computer networking, artificial intelligence, and most innovations in the aerospace industry since the 1930s.

In the specific instances where industrial policy has been applied in this country since the 1970s (when Keynesianism finally failed and what is now known as neoliberalism took center stage), there have been significant successes. Anti-dumping action saved our semiconductor industry in the 1980s. "Voluntary" quotas on Japanese imports did the save for our automobile industry. The Plaza Accord greatly improved the profitability of our manufacturers and nearly wiped out the trade deficit by 1991. SEMATECH restored our semiconductor industry to a position of world leadership.

Not sure what you're on about regarding domestic spending.

[Michaeluj]

Unilateral tariff disarmament is a terrible thing because it allows economic competitors that practice strategic trade policy to target particular industries and erode our marketshare, or, worse, destroy that particular industry in our country (as happened for instance with electronics).

Oh, I must have missed the part where you mentioned tariffs. While they have not been exactly disarmed in this sense, I can take the point that certain countries can be, especially at first and if the production aspects of the economy aren't reformed, affected negatively.
I agree that European nations have better pro-business economic policies, and I can say that that has some influence in America's decline, but the relative comparison does not show that neoliberalism is a degenerative disease or that the US participated in it in any real sense.
True, war does invent, but for such a high cost and for such little relative advantage(foreigners could get them cheaper by method of copy), it won't save any economy, so the issue of heavy, modern, war may still have a disastrous effect on the American economy, not neoliberalism.

(when Keynesianism finally failed and what is now known as neoliberalism took centre stage)

Being known as and actually being something are two different things. We still have an extensive use of a Federal Reserve that is botching everything.

Not sure what you're on about regarding domestic spending.

"Industrial policy".

[Dave]

Oh, I must have missed the part where you mentioned tariffs. While they have not been exactly disarmed in this sense, I can take the point that certain countries can be, especially at first and if the production aspects of the economy aren't reformed, affected negatively.

Unilateral disarmament means that we practice (relatively) free trade while other countries practice protectionism and export subsidy. Elementary game theory illustrates why this is disastrous.

I agree that European nations have better pro-business economic policies, and I can say that that has some influence in America's decline, but the relative comparison does not show that neoliberalism is a degenerative disease or that the US participated in it in any real sense.

European countries do not really have better pro-business economic policies. Their advantage in corporate taxation is relatively recent, and while VAT is a more pro-business manner of raising revenue it is canceled out by higher personal income taxes as well. Significant long-term advantages are in torts and healthcare. What many European nations have is superior pro-manufacturing policies.

True, war does invent, but for such a high cost and for such little relative advantage(foreigners could get them cheaper by method of copy), it won't save any economy, so the issue of heavy, modern, war may still have a disastrous effect on the American economy, not neoliberalism.

US defense spending has not been very high in relative terms since the early 1990s, so I don't think this is an issue. The trouble with the military-industrial complex is that large share of technical talent it commands. I especially wonder what the effect of this was in the early Cold War, when defense spending was very high in relative terms (in constant dollars defense spending has been roughly the same since 1953). But today the United States still has the world's third highest ratio of civilian engineers per worker (behind Japan and Germany), whereas we are second highest overall (behind Israel). Thus I would not identify war as having a disastrous effect on our economy today.

Being known as and actually being something are two different things. We still have an extensive use of a Federal Reserve that is botching everything.

Every country has a central bank and fractional reserve banking. Neoliberalism also supports central banking and the preference of monetary policy over fiscal policy as a contarcyclical tool.

"Industrial policy".

Still not following.

[Michaeluj]

Unilateral disarmament means that we practice (relatively) free trade while other countries practice protectionism and export subsidy. Elementary game theory illustrates why this is disastrous.

Yes.

What many European nations have is superior pro-manufacturing policies.

Sorry, that's what I meant.

US defense spending has not been very high in relative terms since the early 1990s, so I don't think this is an issue. The trouble with the military-industrial complex is that large share of technical talent it commands. I especially wonder what the effect of this was in the early Cold War, when defense spending was very high in relative terms (in constant dollars defense spending has been roughly the same since 1953). But today the United States still has the world's third highest ratio of civilian engineers per worker (behind Japan and Germany), whereas we are second highest overall (behind Israel). Thus I would not identify war as having a disastrous effect on our economy today.

90s? That's practically next door to Reagan.
Looking ahead, I see something that'll completely change my mind, so let's skip this segment.

Neoliberalism also supports central banking and the preference of monetary policy over fiscal policy as a contarcyclical tool.

Good lord, who supports central banking AND no industrial policy? Okay, this is a huge point against neoliberalism. I concede.

Still not following.

I agree that industrial policies are not bad.

[Dave]

90s? That's practically next door to Reagan. ;)
Looking ahead, I see something that'll completely change my mind, so let's skip this segment.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/militar ... e-size.php

For historical comparison, our current defense spending is comparable to the level most European countries maintained from the 19th century until the end of the Cold War. Naturally there was significant variation. From memory, in 1914 France spent 4.8% on GDP and Germany 3.2%.

Good lord, who supports central banking AND no industrial policy? Okay, this is a huge point against neoliberalism. I concede.

Most mainstream economists support central banking and no industrial policy.