I disagree on a number of points. Most emphatically where you seem to think that "the alternative to neoliberalism is socialist planning." This is a crude dichotomy to say the least. Valid in point but in large part incorrect or at the least wildly imprecise. The alternative to neoliberalism is highly variable and seriously advocating a reduction in what would come under a reasonable definition of neoliberalism does not necessarily advocate any particular modification to democratic capitalism per se.

When you begin to look at things like recent history as a general decrease in regulation, a weakening of the labor unions, lowering of taxes on corporation, and a general empowerment of the corporate business model through the severe reduction in Government involvement. The changes we have been seeing in the American business and social atmosphere seem to suggest a strong reversal of these values.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/na ... 22838.aspx

"Distorting the allocation of resources," is exactly what we are beginning to see under Obama, saying that using American sources of resources such as iron and steel to revamp your infrastructure will become a contractual necessity. We have been talking about the need to, and the obvious failure of the current system (social, political, and economic) to move away from the highly impersonal and robotic fascination with optimizing value, perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a newer shared-cost mentality? Where goods and services don't need to be cheapest but best for all.

http://news.google.ca/news?q=obama+prot ... -8&rls=org.

The real problem is how to regulate a free market.

Isn't it though.

New Deal-type incentives for home ownership have gone spectacularly bust

Oh, just recently?

...you can't blame neoliberalism for these problems.

I disagree, lots of people are looking to the reforms introduced Reagan and Thatcher style then carried diligently by Greenspan et al for blame.

---

I guess the point you have to argue is why exactly a moderate amount of socialist style planning would do a great disservice to the American social-economic model (however rigidly you define it), especially now that neoliberalism has obviously failed to provide needed strength and integrity on so many fronts?

Grim wrote:I disagree on a number of points. Most emphatically where you seem to think that "the alternative to neoliberalism is socialist planning." This is a crude dichotomy to say the least. Valid in point but in large part incorrect or at the least wildly imprecise. The alternative to neoliberalism is highly variable and seriously advocating a reduction in what would come under a reasonable definition of neoliberalism does not necessarily advocate any particular modification to democratic capitalism per se.

Defining the difference between 'democratic capitalism' and 'neoliberalism' is problematic. I am a fan of Friedrich Hayek, notably of his view that "the efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanism in free markets.... In Hayek's view, the central role of the state should be to maintain the rule of law, with as little arbitrary intervention as possible." This seems to me the essence of neoliberalism. Departure from the price mechanism tends to provide political support to vested interests, undermining both broad based economic growth and sustainable poverty reduction. The US departed from the price mechanism in tax-deductibility of mortgage interest and in failure to price collateralised debt obligations. Nothing neoliberal about either policy.

When you begin to look at things like recent history as a general decrease in regulation, a weakening of the labor unions, lowering of taxes on corporation, and a general empowerment of the corporate business model through the severe reduction in Government involvement. The changes we have been seeing in the American business and social atmosphere seem to suggest a strong reversal of these values. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/na ... 22838.aspx

Interesting that you should quote the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as an authority in the American economic debate. He also warned in this article, published today in The Monthly, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but then did precisely that by lumping all the sins of the boom under the catchall heading of neoliberalism.

"Distorting the allocation of resources," is exactly what we are beginning to see under Obama, saying that using American sources of resources such as iron and steel to revamp your infrastructure will become a contractual necessity. We have been talking about the need to, and the obvious failure of the current system (social, political, and economic) to move away from the highly impersonal and robotic fascination with optimizing value, perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a newer shared-cost mentality? Where goods and services don't need to be cheapest but best for all. http://news.google.ca/news?q=obama+prot ... -8&rls=org.

This protectionist trend is highly unjust. By saying that people cannot buy from the most efficient supplier, President Obama is forcing customers to subsidise inefficient businesses. Obviously there is enormous political weight behind this new protectionism, but that doesn't make it rational or right.

"The real problem is how to regulate a free market." Isn't it though.

What do you mean by this?

"New Deal-type incentives for home ownership have gone spectacularly bust" Oh, just recently?

The underpinning of the subprime lending crisis is the idea, with roots in Roosevelt, that everyone can own a home even if they can't afford it.

... "you can't blame neoliberalism for these problems." I disagree, lots of people are looking to the reforms introduced Reagan and Thatcher style then carried diligently by Greenspan et al for blame.

But how much is it the neoliberalism of Reagan and Thatcher that is to blame for their dubious legacy? There was little that was neoliberal about the massive expansion of the American military orchestrated by Reagan. My impression is that their neoliberal ideas got caught up in a bigger political agenda of class war, and then tarnished by guilt with association

I guess the point you have to argue is why exactly a moderate amount of socialist style planning would do a great disservice to the American social-economic model (however rigidly you define it), especially now that neoliberalism has obviously failed to provide needed strength and integrity on so many fronts?

Socialism has also been tried and failed, even more spectacularly with the collapse of communism. The point is to consider policies on their merits, based on quantitative analysis of their effects. Using 'neoliberal' as a tar brush serves to discredit sound policies such as low inflation, high savings and incentive for investment, which are the basis of economic growth. The US is better off debating and defining sound policy than looking for catch-all ideological targets for blame.

"Socialism has also been tried and failed, even more spectacularly with the collapse of communism."

Again you draw extremely crude comparisons, you seem incapable of looking at the situation in perspective, the perspective of reality. You may not realize it but you are the only one who has mentioned socialism so far.

Rudd came up in a Google news search for neoliberalism, I had no idea his banker would be critical of his criticisms.

The point was not neoliberalism per se, the point was a shift in thinking as the old conceptualization is disproven to the new through trial and error. This is irrefutable, neoliberalism can have whatever significance any person wishes to place in it, the fact is that it is in decline as another failed attempt. It is in no way radical or unreasonable to say good riddance.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=12120

Robert Tulip wrote:. Attacking neo-liberalism runs the high risk of putting economic policy onto a political rather than a scientific footing.

Robert, help me out with just one thing. Phillips talks about the failure of the market to properly, in its automatic way, value these asset-based products that have caused our problems. Isn't this indeed a failure of the free market, one that the faithful didn't think was possible until too late?

Grim wrote:"Socialism has also been tried and failed, even more spectacularly with the collapse of communism."Again you draw extremely crude comparisons, you seem incapable of looking at the situation in perspective, the perspective of reality. You may not realize it but you are the only one who has mentioned socialism so far. Rudd came up in a Google news search for neoliberalism, I had no idea his banker would be critical of his criticisms. The point was not neoliberalism per se, the point was a shift in thinking as the old conceptualization is disproven to the new through trial and error. This is irrefutable, neoliberalism can have whatever significance any person wishes to place in it, the fact is that it is in decline as another failed attempt. It is in no way radical or unreasonable to say good riddance. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=12120

"The perspective of reality" is highly contested, which is precisely why I originally drew attention to your sweeping condemnation of neoliberalism as a catchall description of the sins of the boom. This is quite wrong, as many practices in the boom ignored the price signals which would have alerted neoliberals to the danger. I mentioned socialism because in economic theory it is the only real alternative to neoliberalism.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:. Attacking neo-liberalism runs the high risk of putting economic policy onto a political rather than a scientific footing.

Robert, help me out with just one thing. Phillips talks about the failure of the market to properly, in its automatic way, value these asset-based products that have caused our problems. Isn't this indeed a failure of the free market, one that the faithful didn't think was possible until too late?

Yes you are right, and of course Bush and Clinton did distort policy for political ends which caused the bubble. However, economic theory should not be primarily a matter of faith, as that way lies grief. My view is that a strongly evidentiary approach to economics will see that neoliberal approaches, emphasising fair competition under the rule of law, are the most efficient and effective.

"I mentioned socialism because in economic theory it is the only real alternative to neoliberalism."

Amazingly you state these opinions seemly knowingly yet in reality you display an elementary grasp at best as to the true impacts of the system and its effects on the western economy. I suggest you start with a Wikipedia search, read the full article, continue down and carry on with other readings. If you don't really know what neoliberalism means in terms of a liberal democracy how can you relate its absence to anything?

"The perspective of reality" is highly contested

Under what terms, or do you honestly see a subjective contest in some time of modern power struggle between strongly polarized capitalism and communist idealisms?

On a personal note I find it offensive to have an apparently educated person pursue irrelevant connections to absurd conclusions doggedly in blind disrespect to the reality of the western economic situation and political reality as expressed in the book. Claiming that a socialist second coming is the logical result to a moderation in economic neoliberalism is laughable.

Grim, My point is that you started off by blaming neoliberalism, whereas I would say the distorted implementation of neoliberal ideas is to blame for the predicament. I stand by my view, based on the arguments in Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, that there is no alternative to neoliberal economics other than ideas derived from socialism. You seem to be accepting the caricatures of neoliberal thought put up by its political opponents, although political debate happens at a very general level where words harden into symbols of opposing camps. I am not trying to place myself in the neoliberal camp in the Bush sense, only to say that sweeping denunciations are dangerous and wrong. Of course, 'communist idealism' is obsolete, but I would argue it continues to inform social democratic political thought in ways that are often hidden.

You seem to have the propensity for easily and willingly confusing ideology and reality in argument.

A theory is only valid until it has been disproven. And the proof is in the pudding on this one. You shy from allying yourself with Thatcherism and Bushonomics yet it is precisely The Constitution of Liberty and similar ideas which have given these people theoretical and rhetorical legitimacy. You claim that "sweeping denunciations are dangerous and wrong" on one hand, with the other you exaggerate the meaning of my original statement while practicing a one-sided ideological rhetoric. Including most notably, but not limited to the distribution of gross blanket falsehoods in phrases that often lack meaning. "Communism...it continues to inform social democratic political thought in ways that are often hidden." Lets be clear as to who exactly is making the "sweeping denunciations" here. Especially as it becomes apparent that you have not done your homework as to the results of this particular right-wing ideology. While you claim that I am seeing apparitions, it is you with your head in the sand that is left clinging onto ideas fast becoming obsolete. As they should be.

http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2009 ... 4c3d43.txt

Grim, as you suggested I had a read through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism It just reinforced my existing opinion that the most free countries are by and large the happiest. I am happy to make sweeping denunciations of communism as it was a vile experiment that directly killed millions of people and induced stagnation and suffering on a grand scale. You can't say that about neoliberalism. I am not exaggerating your statement, which was "rejection of neo-liberalism... appeals to common sense." I am just disagreeing with it.

I see you will continue to attribute one thing to the results for everything despite continued efforts on my part to point out that you have been on a different topic here all along.

The extremely obvious point I have been making continues to be that neoliberalism is not going to disappear and be replaced somehow by communism as you believe it will. The point has been all along that neoliberalism is in real decline under Obama's liberalism (two different isms completely) which is now a reality. You typify the ideologically blinded black and white thinker who would find it difficult or impossible to imagine any type of compromise while pounding out loudly for the only side he knows. The point is to look at the benefits and failings of all realistic and practical systems and attempt to foster the benefits with the least side-effects of the negatives and realize that all system ideas are temporary and need frequent revision to remain viable. You prove incapable of this reasonable task in that you are unwilling to acknowledge the scope of the topic, the context of the words or the unidefinably complex nature of the system to highlight but a few.

The point to me seems to be not to stop discussing rather to try using different ideas for each successive argument rather than repeating the same mantra over and over.