Page 4 of 7

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:10 pm
by Robert Tulip
Sorry Grim, but I don't know where you got the idea I believe "that neoliberalism is... going to disappear and be replaced somehow by communism." I never said anything of the sort and do not believe that at all.

You rightly point out that politics is the art of compromise. However, here we are just talking theory. My point was that your attack on neoliberalism lacks a sound theoretical base, relying instead on the slur of guilt by association.

The logic of the following inference is invalid
1. Neoliberalism supports capitalism
2. Capitalism caused the crash
Therefore
3. Neoliberalism caused the crash.

The problem is that features of capitalism separate from neoliberalism caused the crash, notably the corruption of crony herds. Hence it is wrong to attribute the crash to neoliberal theory.

You say liberalism and Obama's liberalism are "two different isms completely." This is rather hard to understand, so I am trying to disentangle the meaning of what you say. What precisely do you mean by saying "you will continue to attribute one thing to the results for everything".

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:29 pm
by Grim
When included in the very definition of neoliberalism is "Deregulation

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:56 pm
by Robert Tulip
Grim - You point out that "included in the very definition of neoliberalism is ... prudent oversight of financial institutions." The crash was primarily due to failure to prudently oversee financial institutions. So therefore do you absolve neoliberalism from blame?

I did not describe "crony capital" as a normal symptom of capitalism. From a purist neoliberal viewpoint, cronyism conflicts with the rule of law.

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:05 pm
by Grim
No the crash is a result of the failure of neoliberalism. I can't say it any clearer than that. Crony capitalism was encouraged through the deregulation of entry into the market, as the ideology leaves large loopholes, again the definition of the term modeled best in reality despite the nuance or real life contradictions of any Wikipedia description.

Actually if you want to follow the lineal argument based on the integrity of the definition it follows that your going to have to start questioning the fundamentals of capitalism!! It was either capitalism or neoliberalism that has failed here so choose your side, and it seems you have not proposed anything other than my misunderstanding of factors. You are a silly communist RT and your ideas are socialist propaganda well hidden in a capitalist attack strategy from Russia with Government Financed Liquidity. 007 gets foreclosed until the government backs his loan with tax payer dollars in this one. You revolutionary red hat hooligan.

:book:

Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:30 pm
by President Camacho
:P When the insults begin you know it's the end. Checkmate.

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:03 pm
by Grim

Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:37 pm
by Robert Tulip
Good one Grim. We may be closer on this than you think. In the article you link on Wall Street Socialism, Phillips says "the quarter-century suspension of anything resembling creative destruction or traditional market forces is the culprit." When people hear neoliberalism they often think of Ronald Wilson Reagan's inaugural comment that government is the problem not the solution, and of Obama's pledge to turn around the Reagan revolution. But the issue is more complicated than that. Efforts in recent times to defy gravity - 'privatising profits and socialising losses' - what Phillips calls suspending market forces - have only proved that neoliberal quantitiative economics needs to be taken more seriously. The cause of the crash, by this argument from Phillips, is that economics was not neoliberal enough.

Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:41 am
by Grim
To a certain degree it matters little how you look at any particular philosophic argument of which there may be many possible theoretical nuances of definition. I think rather that the unfolding of events defines the definition better than the theory behind the word. During these particular events the symptoms of social, political and above all economic upheaval are no less than the signs of a rampant neoliberalism assuming its theoretical climax - its predestined role if you will. The role of a poorly conceived bias, strong-armed into legitimacy politically, poorly understood while favored then forgotten socially amid the backwash of prosperity as the insidious rot of it has festered economically only to be gravely underestimated retrospectively.

If neoliberalism hasn't failed completely what has? I would argue that participants in any system, in roles large or small, must to a large degree aware or not follow one interpretation or another as to the direction of the institution. There is no lack of philosophy, only a lack of knowledge as to what the interpretation of the system is in reality and a ignorance as to what the results of that philosophic manifestation may prove to be.

Certainty of the Unknown

Pointing to the faltering of regulation and social inequality inherent of the system is enough for Phillips to call into question the prevailing neoliberal attitude.
"As a further pledge of allegiance to the eighteenth-century British free market apostle, many Reaganites took to wearing Adam Smith ties...the benefit of GOP tax reductions went disproportionately to corporations...once solid institutions had been deregulated at the urging of the Reagan administration. This book's premise, now that a quarter-century's results are in hand, is that the eighties can be identified as the launching pad of a decisive financial sector takeover..."
:book:

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:49 am
by bobby408
Securitization is just a way to rid the government of the burden of social security. Reaganite conservatism and classical "laissez-faire" economists like Morgan Friedman, are stauch supporters of deregulation, low taxes for the rich, and low government programs for citizenry to make room for their tax-cuts. This system of economy and government has been in full gear ever since the Reagan administration (no matter if its a democrat or Republican) and this system of government and economy, which is going global now by way of the WTO and globalization, is going to ruin our lives at the pleasure of the rich and powerful who have every thing to gain by this type of system.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:15 am
by Robert Tulip
bobby408 wrote:Securitization is just a way to rid the government of the burden of social security. Reaganite conservatism and classical "laissez-faire" economists like Morgan Friedman, are stauch supporters of deregulation, low taxes for the rich, and low government programs for citizenry to make room for their tax-cuts. This system of economy and government has been in full gear ever since the Reagan administration (no matter if its a democrat or Republican) and this system of government and economy, which is going global now by way of the WTO and globalization, is going to ruin our lives at the pleasure of the rich and powerful who have every thing to gain by this type of system.
Hello Bobby408, welcome to Booktalk. I read your intro thread and it is nice to see your interest in political history.

I would be interested if you could further explain your comment here about securitisation. The bundling of financial instruments through securitisation was intended as a way to make money by unlocking the hidden value within capital. Of course, the collapse shows that such a path is very risky when it is not regulated, as piratical individuals and firms exploited the system for personal advantage in highly destructive ways. The result is likely to be a greater social security burden for government.

Milton Friedman is of course a controversial figure. I think he has been unfairly maligned, as his central insights about the need for aggregate management of money remain a good basis for sound policy. The trouble as I see it was that Reagan and his followers abused Friedman's ideas to promote the venality of the very rich, and this has given the whole notion of a rigorous focus on economic growth a bad name in left wing circles. Friedman wanted governments to run balanced budgets, but the Reagan-Bush governments ran big deficits so can hardly be seen as Friedmanite. US public debtstarted its upward move under Reagan.

I don't agree with your comments criticising the WTO and globalisation, as global integration is essential to improve the lives of the poor. There is a really interesting World Bank article, Growth is Good for the Poor which can be read as a strong defence of Friedman's trickle-down theory.