Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Divergence with (classical?) liberalism

I have chatted with quite a few people with (classical) liberal beliefs and they are not happy being associated with neoliberalism as the word is understood by the general public. This point of view should be presented in this article. --JamesPoulson (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a follow-up. Here's an extract from this link (Google translation) which is a wiki maintained by liberal thinkers.

Wrong uses of the term

Other times, the neoliberal label describes the monetarists of the Chicago School, while many monetarist theories go through a state intervention and central banks; this is therefore nonsense.

Finally, some liberal critics include the "neo-liberalism" the school of thought of the supply economy that was notably driven by Arthur Laffer and George Gilder, both members of the University of Southern California, seeking to show that contemporary economic difficulties come from a production factors of failure due to government intervention.

Note also, to put a stop to ghost hunting, the term "neo-liberal" is often attached to the neoconservatives, who are as liberal as the sky is green.

What is generally understood by those who use the term neo-liberal as an insult (which is the most common case), is that, unlike the "good" liberals of the Enlightenment who were concerned with defending the rights of man, the neo-liberals only care about defending an alleged "market power". It seems that for them to implicitly participate in the market, creating a company, make profit, etc. isn't part of human rights. On this subject, Alain Laurent denies that what is called "neoliberalism" is fundamentally different from classical liberalism:

Neoliberalism (if by that we mean what was professed by Hayek, Mises and Milton Friedman) has never done but actualize, adapt to contemporary circumstances, classical liberalism. Someone like Smith simultaneously defended economic freedom and political freedom. (...) The so-called neo-liberals do not say anything else, they merely adapt what Smith, Turgot, Say, Bastiat, Benjamin Constant and even Tocqueville have said. (...) Freedom is not divided.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is apparently considered as an "amateur" source. Feel free to add something better. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Classical liberals are a very tiny minority in real. I dont think issues of the few leftover "classical liberals" with terms like Neoliberalism belong in this article. --Kharon (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kharon: Maybe. The way I came into contact with liberalism was through the last person I was working for and there are quite a few from France and Belgium on social media. I myself do not identify with them and if asked today I would lean towards distributism or Germany's social market economy, although I do read things out of interest as these people have a certain understanding of economics.

I am not sure about France but liberals probably associated themselves with Sarkozy's Union for a Popular Movement which became The Republicans (centre-right). The liberals in Belgium associate with the Mouvement Réformateur (right wing) which is one of the major parties in Belgium. However their angle in terms of being "liberal" could have more to do with liberal professions and they now appear to reject the party with a split towards smaller parties which does not stop them interacting with some sympathetic representatives of the MR.

They have affinities with libertarians so libertarianism in the United States would be a closer match then the left-wing liberalism that some describe as progressive. --JamesPoulson (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberalism developed out of neo-classical liberalism (which is what I assume you mean by classical liberalism), i.e., late 19th to early 20th century laissez-faire liberalism, but accepted a number of modern liberal concepts such as the welfare state. I do not see any reason to alter the article because a tiny group of supporters of the Austrian school do not like the terminology. TFD (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I have not dug into this in detail. From what I've read it is exact that these people are for the Austrian School. They also seem to like Ron Paul who is no small US politician. They do seem to be a bunch that have made a "religion" out of their views if I may say so.

Notice that the extract above is attributed to Alain Laurent (Google translation) who is apparently a recognized philosopher who has written books on liberal thinkers.

In the UK where I am from, Margaret Thatcher is associated with neoliberalism. The mention of conservatives above is verified in her being conservative. The page on conservatism does state that she was "guided by neoliberal economics" and "reversed many of Labour's programmes" with respect to the "nationalization of industry and the promotion of social welfare" that "The Conservatives generally accepted [...] "until the 1980s". So what happened is that neoliberal economics (or liberalization?) was adopted as a form marking a change with previous policies.

Notice how this has been selective. For the average person there has been no liberalization and with the exception of the UK starting a business is heavy in most EU countries.

I will re-add this seemingly dramatic quote by a Swiss professor in finance, "A financial aristocracy [...] is draped in the clothes of liberalism, but it's daily practice often contradicts the basic principles" (see "A tax on financial transactions could replace all current taxes"). He would not a liberal himself as the subject of any tax would annoy these liberals I have mentioned.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The definition of Neoliberalism has always been a clusterfuck because hayek's plan of an united frontline against communism/socialism had to disguise the fact that the other major "branch" of "new liberalism", ordoliberalism, was infact on purpouse in the middle between the "two archenemies" liberalism and socialism from start. Its even messed up/written this way as definition in our article ((quote) "‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning") nomatter this describes Ordoliberalism correctly but is very wrong with Neoliberalism as "middle way" to socialism was categorically unthinkable for Hayek. His critique against anything social - including social market economy aka Coordinated market economy aka ordoliberalism - shows the central contradiction or grand ideology messup in his attempt to "embed" the fame and spread of social or "Coordinated market economy" and sell its success under the flag of "Liberal Market Economy" Neoliberalism. As it is sold wrong labled till today. Compared to this global rift it does not look relevant how some "classical liberals" are not "being happy" with the differentiation of Neoliberalism against "classical liberalism". --Kharon (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What you say is definitely interesting. Having chatted with other people, Ordoliberalism, Social market economy and Distributism might be described as a "third way".

Distributism in particular sounds like it sprung from distrust of too much centralization in both the public and private sector. It could be confused with Socialism but it differs since it is not about social ownership of the means of production but about widespread private ownership of the means of production as well as property.

It apparently influenced Anti-trust legislation and G. K. Chesterton was apparently wary of plutocracy.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Neo-liberals have neither understood nor followed Hayek. Some of them (Thatcher, Reagan) admired his political views but others (Clinton, Blair) ignored them. TFD (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Tho Reagan and even more Thatcher fought a vigerous war against anything that could be labled communism or socialism. Just remember Augusto Pinochet. Oddly Pinochet was infact something "authoritarian national conservative elitist" politically. Much alike a Royalist infact, so even much further away from being anyhow liberal then Salvador Allende. Thus as i already pointed out above Neoliberalism is an intellectual clusterfuck by design. Even Pinochet was labled over as Neoliberal. And much worse even, Hayek personaly wrote most letters on this totally ill placed lable - nomatter he came to regret that later and then told everyone he never planned to support a dictatorship after the damage was done. --Kharon (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Neoliberalism is a paradigm that almost all governments adopted. That is why we can group governments from Communist China to Pinochet's Chile as neoliberal. (Pinochet btw used Chicago economists to overhaul the economy.) Forty years ago, most governments followed a social liberal paradigm. Conservative, liberal and socialist governments all built the welfare state. Just because they had different ideologies does not make it meaningless to point out they were following the same policies. TFD (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

They did not have same policies, they just had the same enemy and thus some keep trying to establish a unifyed lable (for obviouse reasons). Free market and regulated market are not same policies. Please have a look at 'Varieties of Capitalism' or 'Capitalisme contre Capitalisme'(less known in english literature i guess) from Michel Albert. --Kharon (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

TFD, the switch was perhaps a necessity. Having read things from a Marxist perspective the view is that Keynesian economics stopped working in the 1980s and that Reagan/Thatcher did a turnaround by picking up the ready-made solution that neoliberal-like policies offered.

It is around that time that François Mitterrand's promises did not come to fruition and France subsequently abandonned Dirigisme. So I'm guessing they took the same route. Only Germany has really plodded on thanks to the sense of compromise between workers and bosses while other central European countries have been stuck in immobilism to some degree and refusal to bring about big reforms due to political tension.

P.S: If I were sarcy I'd say this was just an excuse to open the doors for big industry through liberalization, privatize the heck out of the economy and liquidate public assets to stave off mounting debt. In other words, early forms of austerity which the page on dirigisme hints at with the mention of "rigeur". --JamesPoulson (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not replying to me, you are just repeating libertarian claptrap that has nothing to do with neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Lets not get carried away into politics because we will never find consensus there. Its well known and thus can be assumed as true that capitalism produces Billionairs and some of these try to bribe the political system to suite them with all their wits and power. Thats common sense and logic. But we dont know to what extend political leaders are really "bribed" in that sense, even when you pick famous disputed leaders like for example Wen Jiabao, Dick Cheney or Vladimir Putin, who somehow became very, very, very rich while doing politics. On top we will hopelessly fork away from our article Neoliberalism with these disputes. --Kharon (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully, that was a reply to Kharon? Definitely not a libertarian myself as I currently depend on welfare. Some of the stuff I've read is scary, especially attacks on the UHDR and some views I've read are anti social rights to the point of breaking responsibilities to children. The plethora of links posted above clearly indicate I have developed a hobby of studying different ideologies and it is eye opening because in practise the meaning of some labels are distorted.

Also I agree with what is said above. The job of politicians is to strike compromises and they are not ideological purists by a long stretch. In the end, political ideology is mostly of concern to the average Joe as he is the one that is going to be the most impacted by government decisions. I assume all three of us are in this case.

Anyway, I suggest we close the discussion here for now until notable sources are posted relative to this section. Have a good day and happy wiki-ing :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Here is one article published yesterday in Le Soir written by Corentin de Salle who is the scientific director of the Centre Jean Gol, the study center for the Mouvement Réformateur (one of the major political parties in Southern Belgium).

Le néolibéralisme, un fascisme? «Madame Cadelli, le néolibéralisme n’existe pas» (Neo-liberalism, fascism? "Madame Cadelli, neoliberalism does not exist").

Sorry, could not find an automatic translator that can handle a link but you can copy-paste into Google translate. Here are some extracts:

Corentin de Salle, Scientific Director of the Centre Jean Gol, meets the white card of the president of the Association of Magistrates.

Manuela Cadelli, president of the Association of Magistrates, published yesterday in Le Soir an article that says bluntly that neoliberalism is fascism. In the edition of this morning, the President of PS, Elio Di Rupo, interviewed on this podium outbid by saying: "Finally someone dares to say what happens really! And it feels good ! ".

[...]

To say that liberalism is fascism is as absurd assert that neo-socialism is a fascism. Certainly Manuela Cadelli takes great care to distinguish the "liberalism" of "neoliberalism". This is a classic rhetorical strategy. As no one can question the important contribution of the liberal tradition in our society, liberal critics have invented this fictitious concept of "neoliberalism". In fact, neoliberalism does not exist.

[...]

But, taken in the sense given to it most of the time, the term "neoliberalism" is an intellectual mystification: it is a theory invented from scratch by anti-liberal intellectuals and which is presented as a catalog of dogmas and articles of faith of the liberal community in order to discredit liberalism.

[...]

Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek usually called "neoliberals" have always, in fact, proclaimed as "liberal". Besides, those who speak of neoliberalism routinely can not name one author posing as neoliberal.

[...]

Okay, tell me do you, but, again, this is not the liberalism that condemns Manuella Cadelli but the economic and budgetary policies that we face every day. Precisely. But do we really have to do here for political "neo-liberal" or "liberal"? An economy is liberal, says Milton Friedman, when the state takes about 30% of the wealth produced. Beyond that, it becomes a social democracy. We currently have a footprint of 60%!

--JamesPoulson (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Politicians say lots of things, but we rely on serious writing as sources. De Salle says that the government, of which his party is a part, spends 60% of GDP and is therefore "social democratic," while the Communist government of Turkmenistan, that spends 15% of GDP, by that reasoning is liberal. I guess he agrees that the policies that he and other liberals follow today differ from classical liberalism but he prefers to call it "social democracy" rather than neoliberalism. Why does he call himself a liberal at all? TFD (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The French Wikipedia and LinkedIn say De Salle is a jurist, doctor in philosophy, assistant at the Free University of Brussels (a top university here) and teaching in other schools. As such, he is not a politician.

The Jean Gol center could be described as a think tank. So he is definitely involved but nonsense would hurt credibility on the academic side.

About spending, the original statement is "60 % de prélèvements". It is not about GDP as automatic translation has put it. It is something to do with taxes or money being subtracted from individuals and companies. According to one employer it is around 50% or more. It would include social security.

Turkmenistan may have a welfare system but this view probably focuses on developed countries.

De Salle's statement could be seen as awkward though if there is a guilt-inducing insinuation that "people are living over their means".

This obscures the cost of debt repayment which according to a source using the Belgian National Bank is around 43 billion euros per year for a population of 11 million. According to Tradingeconomics.com Turkmenistan's Government Debt to GDP is only 16.8 % (among the lowest in the world) while Belgium's is 106 %.

People who point fingers at the unemployed, people on social security and immigrants will almost certainly be disturbed by the figures in the table below.

Budget name	Amount (euros)	Percent of budget
Debt repayment	43.5 billion	20%
Healthcare	28.3 billion	13%
Unemployment benefits	6.3 billion	3%
Integration income	0.9 billion	0.4%

This is why concern was voiced elsewhere about neoliberalism being designated as the untouchable source of all woes. Something bad is definitely happening but in the real world things happen because of a combination of factors. That liberals think the government is spending too much or that socialists think that money is being mis-pent are red herrings according to data above.

Contrary to France which oscillates between the major left and right-wing parties, Belgian politics was dominated by the Socialists until more recently, at least in the south. The MR party actually had less votes in Wallonia than the Socialist Party and the reason it is in the majority is because they have teamed up with the separatist New Flemish Alliance, the majority in Flanders.

France and Belgium have similar systems and similar issues. So logically this is not the doing of a single political party. Whatever neoliberalism has affected the countries is perhaps the shell painted on the debt situation explained here.

So now perhaps you understand why this Wikipedia article can be seen as partly misleading.

I won't add much beyond that except ask you the question of why the world has more than $200 trillion debt when it should all cancel out and be equal to $0.00... .

--JamesPoulson (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of PhDs working for partisan thinktanks. Some of them say global warming is an emergency, others that it is a hoax. Some say the universe is 5 billion years old, others 6 thousand. I really do not care what a politician says, I care what reliable sources say. Find a standard textbook that explains what you think should be in the article. Also, read WP:NPOVNWP:NPOV. TFD (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The contrary was not stated. De Salle's LinkedIn profile is clear about him not being a politician. He works for this think tank presenting analysis of works of Mises and Hayek. The center does indeed emanate from the MR party.

Look, the question here is not that important to me. If you must know, I lean a tad to the left and affinities lie with the Pirate Party. So I would not vote MR, especially since one minister was planning to "reactivate" people on social security when a schizophrenic died as a result of the same approach in England.

My concerns (which could be qualified as original research) are given above. In having "neoliberalism" as an umbrella term, the conventional left wing and everyday people are being blinded to certain realities which anyone with interest in economics might spot.

Reliability is a criteria on Wikipedia but neither WP:Identifying_reliable_sources nor WP:NPOV necessarily exclude biased sources.

The article is an opinion piece but is there anything stopping a new section on the article about the controversy in Belgium? The controversy did happen so that much is factual.

Obviously, it would be ridiculous to consider that neoliberalism doesn't exist as he says since it is a tangible concept. Its negative effects are apparently recognized by liberal circles but the expression Crony capitalism is used instead with both words being combined on that page. It explicitly says:

"socialist economists [...] have criticized the term as an ideologically motivated attempt to cast what is in their view the fundamental problems of capitalism as avoidable irregularities. Socialist economists dismiss the term as an apologetic for failures of neoliberal policy and, more fundamentally, their perception of the weaknesses of market allocation."

"Supporters of capitalism generally oppose crony capitalism as well, but consider it an aberration brought on by governmental favors incompatible with free market. In this view, crony capitalism is the result of an excess of socialist-style interference in the market, which inherently will result in a toxic combination of corporations and government officials running the sector of the economy"

So there are two points of view or biases one of which is not represented here? In this case, is the article here really unbiased?

Adding to this, here is a video with Noam Chomsky. I often refer to what he says in terms of defining political ideologies in purist terms as I trust his background and he clearly says the following.

"The term neoliberalism is a very curious one. First of all, it's not liberal [...] and it's not new. It was neoliberal policies or something rather like them that created the third world. [...] Europe grew and developed. First England, the United States, Germany, Italy and so on. They developed a radically violating, what are called neoliberal principles, strong states, direct intervention in the economy and so on. India and later China were devastated and the same is true of what we call now the third world. How? By imposition of forced market principles and this is very well known. So if you read serious economic historians, Paul Bairoch for example, he simply points out that protectionism, state intervention created the rich and developed societies. He doesn't call it neoliberalism but "forced liberalization". It is striking to see that every element of the neoliberal package is specifically designed to undercut democracy. It's rarely discussed and people talk about its economic effects but just think it through. [...] For Keynes the greatest achievement of the Bretton Woods system was to institute financial regulation and there's a reason. That provides space for governments to undertake programmes that are supported by the population. If you have no constraints on capital flow then you can attack currencies freely. That creates what international economists sometimes call a virtual parliament of investors and lenders who carry out a “moment-by-moment referendum” on government policies and if they think the policies are irrational they can "vote" against them by capital flight, attacks on currencies and so on. Policies that are irrational are by definition those that benefit people but don't improve profit and market access and so on and therefore governments face what's called a dual constituency, their own population and the virtual parliament, and the virtual parliament usually wins, especially in poor countries. Huh, the rich countries sort of modulate ... first of all they didn't accept the neoliberal package as completely as, say, latin america but to the extent that they did the effects are predictable and the same is true of other elements of the neoliberal programmes. So take say privatization which became a mantra. By definition privatization undercuts democracy."

--JamesPoulson (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, the link you posted links to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which is certainly not a document for anyone to read. Were you instead trying to link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? It simply reads "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Identifying who these reliable sources are is another topic entirely. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I am amending the link. The policy guides us because it says to present significant views. The most significant view is that there was a paradigm shift from the early 80s, although some of the changes came about as early as following the 1970s energy crisis, leading to cuts to government services, privatization, reduction of upper level income tax rates, etc. TFD (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Paradigm shift is aptly stated. There was indeed trouble in the 1970s with the Nixon Shock which possibly came as a result of the cost of the Vietnam war. Refer to what Chomsky says above for the change that marked the 80s. Neoliberal(-like?) policies did kick in but he or his source call it "forced liberalization" with the all the effects you have cited as was most evident in the UK.

This does not explain the why. People interested in economics have noticed lowering purchasing power for currency, increased money creation and the Middle-class squeeze. --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

We do not know why it happened. It could be that the Bretton Woods accord and high social spending were no longer sustainable. Or it could be that business elites saw an opportunity to redistribute wealth upward. But what is not in doubt is that a shift occurred to what is generally called neoliberalism. At the time though observers used more localized names, such as Thatcherism, Reaganism, rogernomics, socialism with Chinese characteristics and (in Chile) the Chicago school or in some cases, particularly where there were no liberal parties, simply liberalism. It's a real topic, there is just disagreement over what it is called. But per disambiguation, this is the best possible name. TFD (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the significance of Economic neoliberalism section and its Neoliberal economics subsection?

What is the difference between the two?

The section seems to be an introduction about principles or theory while the subsection starts of with a mention of Friedman so an interpretation or POV? --JamesPoulson (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Friedman is the most prominent neoliberal Theorist but you are invited to suggest other prominent views to add. --Kharon (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. What sense do you make of these two headings. It sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other if you get my drift. --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Correcting Category

I have changed the category from macroeconomics to microeconomics. The reason that I did this is because any 'theory' cannot be macroeconomics when it only ever considers one person (the rational person). l santry (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How does this apply on a micro-economic level? When most people talk about neoliberalism it is about the "big picture". --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Liberalism is ideology, not science. Thus it can not be economics, which defines itself as pure science. --Kharon (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comments induce that the article should clearly delimit the founding ideology, the micro-economic principles and the attributed macro-economic effects. --JamesPoulson (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This article needs a clean-up and restructuring

Just an opinion but this is not classroom or textbook material. If I were a teacher and had to present the subject to students it wouldn't be an adequate source to answer questions.

There are seas of text with people and arguments lumped together when content should go straight to the point in introductions and then add information for further reading.

It's obviously an emotive subject as shows the content that point to injustices (farmer killing himself, feminism).

Suggestions are as follows:

• Start off with a present-day definition or a single paragraph explaining what it's all about. If it this is difficult to do so then the subject is not sufficiently understood and we need to dig at what it's about at the core.
• Go into terminology or the evolution of the meaning of the term.
• Section off the ideological origins. Draw a difference between individual liberalism and large-scale policies so there is no confusion between the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels.
• Cover the economic schools of thought and detail what ideas influence today's policies. Policy implications seems to be a good detail on what it's about.
• Explain how this is relevant to politics and how a transition took place to neoliberalist policies. For example, mentions of Reagan and Thatcher.
• Details the effects that followed the application of these policies up until the present day.
• Detail who is for and against. Common support/criticisms with added information below person by person.
• Possibly create new pages for content that is sufficiently detailed on its own.

This would, imho, provide a more pleasant read.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Textbooks are usually written by one (relieabel) author or atleast an cooperative team of specialists. Here we have to cite sources, which makes it very difficult to "go straight to the point". Additionally the question will arise what that point is and given the heavy disputed matter you will not even have/get an consensual point you can go straight to. --Kharon (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why Talk pages exist :p . Let's leave the point aside. What about the article structure above? Any suggestions seeing you are into the subject? --JamesPoulson (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Topics should be laid out the way they normally are in reliable sources. Do you have any sources that could provide a guide? And no one is stopping you from editing the article, provided it follows policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Propose deletion or at the very minimum renaming this as a conspiracy theory

" The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results."

"primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism"

These two statements are not backed up by sources and have no basis in reality as government spending in the US and most Western countries has increased, not decreased as a percentage of GDP since 1979. Also the financial crash was caused by the increased use of and printing of fiat currency which is not a part of classical liberal ideas but lefty keynesianism. Leftist agenda on wikipedia once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.91.21 (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Talking of the 1970s this could be of interest in terms of government spending in terms of debt repayment. Taken from Financial_repression#After_World_War_II:

Financial repression "played an important role in reducing debt-to-GDP ratios after World War II" by keeping real interest rates for government debt below 1% for two-thirds of the time between 1945 and 1980, the United States was able to "inflate away" the large debt (122% of GDP) left over from the Great Depression and World War II. In the UK, government debt declined from 216% of GDP in 1945 to 138% ten years later in 1955.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

They are in fact backed up by the citations given, if you choose to look at them. For example, the second statement is backed by this citation (in the very first sentence in fact):

As for the first, in addition to the academic article cited, two books have been written on it: Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism, (Harvard University Press, 2013), ISBN 0674072243; David M Kotz, The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism, (Harvard University Press, 2015), ISBN 0674725654.

These are all academic citations, so your charge of conspiracy theory is bogus.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

+1, these two statements are backed up by reliable sources. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not prevent a narrative. Far from defending neoliberalism, it should however be pointed out that anyone that has put research into the question knows that a mix of policies have been applied since the seventies. We do have socialist policies in most Western countries and neoliberalism is an everything-or-nothing ideology and not a buffet. Neoliberalism as a buzzword is an emotional subject and describes just the form or vehicle. If Wikipedia really wants to be neutral it should separate this page to describe post-war events in objective terms. All of this information is probably already present on the wiki.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cant help when references fail to point out their view as precisely as you find needed. Socialism is often critizised just the same shallow way nomatter Karl Marx shurely never intended to support any form of Dictatorship. So politicians rig Ideology to their needs... what a surprise. Nevertheless there are big chunks of truth in these blames. --Kharon (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Kharon "So politicians rig Ideology to their needs..." Bingo ! Couldn't have said things better :) .

Politics and ideology are mainly the concern of the layman as he is the one that will most have to put up with how society is organized. In this respect, there is the famous French song called l'Opportuniste about a guy that turns his coat to suit whatever political changes came along.

One cannot really blame politicians because as Freud apparently said most people do not want the responsibility that comes with freedom. The elected are asked to fix things and we might not realize the scale of the mess that has been left by their predecessors. So Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan might not have had the liberal mindset but neoliberal policies offered them a ready-made solution to go where they wanted to go.

Your comment about socialism is founded. Karl Marx was economically minded as he sensed that this medium could offer more fairness than politics. Even today, there is no such thing as economic rights when everyone needs money to live. Socialism itself was originally about owning the means of production according to Chomsky. What we have now is "state" socialism where the government acts as an intermediary to implement socialist policies. That puts a lot of spending power into it's hands and, unfortunately, this can be abused.

About blame, this is also founded. The "laissez-faire" approach is obviously concurrent to the ups and downs we have known. However, the effects of the 2007-2008 crisis are obviously due to some big economic actors evading their responsibilities towards others. This is what Greenspan stated, that he was convinced that based on past evidence that policies were working and could not believe the outcome. There is no way to know if he was sincere. That he adheres to the Austrian school would be inductive reasoning unless a source explicitly describes him as such.

As for financialization, it is the result of a political decision. The liberalization has served booming GDP well but the return-to-reward ratio in the West has been modest and perhaps even detrimental to the average person from generation to generation. The eighties and the beginning of the nineties were probably the peak before unemployment started to pick up. In terms of transactions the "financial economy" is probably 50x bigger or more than the everyday economy. As they are interconnected and share the same monetary system anything that happens on one side propagates to the other. That is what we have to put up with and the quote below from John Kay defines what priority the production of goods and services have.

"Lending to companies and individuals engaged in the production of goods and services, what most people imagine to be the occupation of the banks, account for only about 3% of their total liabilities. "

--JamesPoulson (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In defence of the original content, the '07-'08 financial crisis has been repeatedly linked to the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, which could only occur within a deregulated housing market. That deregulation was justified at the time with reference to neoliberal theory. This has been quite widely reported, both in the mainstream press and in academia. I've never heard anyone claim that the global financial crisis was caused by simple overprinting, whether quantitative easing, hyperinflation, or anything of that sort. 78.149.34.206 (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thats like accusing the Police for Murder because when A shot B they where not there to prevent it. It's a madeup story/argument from financial market Spindoctors at their finest (fairy-tale-)Hour. Packing 100.000 liquidated mortgages into some disguise to sell it as certified value is and always was simply Fraud. If it seems impossible to pin down the person or legal body later on, who had the criminal intention in that case, does not change the fact that it's a case of fraud. --Kharon (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC) P.S.:And here is evidence: Wall Street Journal ,April 11, 2016: Decade-Old Details Revealed in Goldman Mortgage Pact. --Kharon (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Are there any self-styled Neoliberals?

From reading this article, the impression I get is that "neoliberalism" was a concept invented to name a group of policies which the inventors disliked.

In various forums and newspapers I see "neoliberal" used by those on the left as a pejorative for those on the right.

Is this the correct interpretation. Are there any notable individuals who actually self-identify as neoliberal?

Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

William Easterly? Cantab1985 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The term, like the term liberal, was created retrospectively, hence no one called Reagan and Thatcher policies as neoliberal at the time. OTOH, we do not refuse to call the views of Locke and Adam Smith liberals because it was it was a term created by their opponents after they died. TFD (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you read the Wealth of Nations carefully, Smith was proposing social justice, not libertarian or liberal concepts.Cantab1985 (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern was that, from my reading, Neoliberal is invariably used as an insult. A lot of commentators use "neoliberalism" to refer to basically anything they don't like. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Its understandable you may get that impression but that is just the "shallow" way topics are discussed in political debate. Other topics, like "bureaucracy" for example, are used in a simmilar way. --Kharon (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertarianism vs Neo-liberalism

This article totally conflates libertarianism with neo-liberalism. Responding to the above comment, here is a self-styled modern neo-liberal, basically a right-wing Democrat: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/09/05/a-neo-liberals-manifesto/21cf41ca-e60e-404e-9a66-124592c9f70d/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.129 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it does. Regarding your link, right-wing Democrats c. 1982 did use the term neo-liberal, but it never caught on and the current usage dates to the early 1990s. TFD (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Both ideologies are branches of Liberalism and in centering on individual freedom they are infact very close. Much, much closer infact even then Ordoliberalism aka "german Neoliberalism" ever was to Neoliberalism. So dont blame the article, blame August F. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand or one or all the other Mothers and Fathers of these. --Kharon (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

While they share some history, along with ordoliberalism, they are significantly different. Neoliberalism is the paradigm of most western governments regardless of party, while libertarianism is the ideology of a tiny minority of voters. And neoliberalism accepts some aspects of social liberalism, including the welfare state and regulation. They differ on breaking up telephone companies and the British pubs, and multi-national trade deals. TFD (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It should have been mentioned above ideologist forfathers task to differenciate their liberal ideology branch but far as i can see they infact did the opposite. Very likely to prevent inner conflict and thus to pull roughly all likeminded intellectual forces into the epic battle against communism and socialism. Confligation by design. Ofcourse later on this causes allot of irritation but then that epic war against the "dark forces" will never end anyway, will it? So please stop thinking about distinctions between libertarianism and neoliberalism. Dont waste your time! Lets blame the russians and/or chineese for something instead. --Kharon (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard very clearly set himself apart from the program and his supporters do not support the mainstream Democratic or Republican Party. No members of the Ludwig von Mises Institute for example serve in the Obama cabinet. TFD (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Has he ever written that he has nothing in common with Neoliberals, attacked Neoliberal Ideas as such or alike? I guess you would agree no liberal Ideologists ever left a doubt about what they think of socialism. To be fair atleast Ludwig von Mises pointed out clearly and often enough that he valued to be distinct from Neoliberals. So did the Austrian School. But then Friedrich August von Hayek is often regarded as part of the Austrian School and jet at same time one of the first Neoliberals. Hayek is sometimes even described as Ordoliberal and Ordoliberals are often categorized equal to Neoliberals. Its an epic clusterfuck. --Kharon (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hayek was influential with both schools. But so were Locke and Adam Smith. But it is possible for the same person to influence followers in different ways.

AFAIK, Rothbard never wrote about neoliberalism. But he died before the term became widespread and was certainly critical of what we would call neoliberal today.

TFD (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

But he wrote about socialism/communism i bet. I must confess i never cared much about liberal/libertarian literature and never read any from Rothbard or Rand. --Kharon (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph needs work

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I remember enough freshman English to know that this is not an acceptable definition:

"Neoliberalism[1] is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time."

A definition puts something in a class, the distinguishes it from all members of that class. I suppose if we're just trying to define neoliberalism as a term with no concrete meaning, well, this succeeds. I don't think that's the case.

I beg of someone who does know this topic to take up the challenge of writing a concise opening sentence that says what neoliberalism is. Undoubtedly the result will be controversial and incomplete, but it will be a far sight better than just saying that it's a term whose usage has changed.

A reader should be able to read the opening paragraph and at least get the gist of what the whole article is about. That is certainly not the case here. After reading the whole article I still don't know what it's about. It could well be that the term has been expropriated by so many competing ideologies that it has no specific meaning. If that's the case, well at least say so.

Pgramsey (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Liberalism is a mainstream ideology and in consequence you have 1000001 "scientific" sources. Ofcourse a mainstream ideology is a priori or "by nature" full of Legends made by the 1000001 Spin doctors mainstream ideology somehow always produces. Its not much different from mainstream religions where we all know about some schools or branches that occasionally or even traditionally fight eachother to the bone over tiniest differences. Even the "competition", as you call it, is likely described as an unrelevant "minor issue" in one source and as essential "main problem" in another source. So infact the answer you want is already answered, defined and classified in one single word: Its Ideology. --Kharon (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not the definition; it comes right after that statement. I moved some things around to hopefully make the definition more easily understood. Is this better?

Neoliberalism is a term which has been used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s. Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.

The definition and usage of the term has changed over time. It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called ‘Third’ or ‘Middle Way’ between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning. The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" heavily declined. When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted. It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it also had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing. The impact of the global 2008-09 crisis has also given rise to new scholarship that critiques neoliberalism and seeks developmental alternatives.

References

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain how this is different to the current lead and why you think this is better? It's difficult to compare the two when they are in different web pages Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been moved to the second paragraph, which is more appropriate given the content of that paragraph: "Neoliberalism[1] is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time." The actual definition is the first thing you read. It's pretty clear cut IMO. I put my edits here to seek consensus given the edit warring in the past over the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think its wrong to use "laissez-faire economic liberalism" as discription. Best would be to start describing Neoliberalism as anglosaxian-us-american branch of the new Liberalism. Also, as i already tryed to point out "Third Way" was not a concept of Neoliberalism. It was first used as Part of a Booktitle from Franz Oppenheimer "Weder so noch so, der dritte Weg" in 1933 [1] and then used by Alexander Rüstow at the conference Colloque Walter Lippmann where he also coined out the word Neoliberalism. But Rüstow was an explicite advocate for Big government(!!) and thus infact an Ordoliberal, far away from Neoliberalism as it developed in its anglosaxian-us-american branch and even more away from laissez-faire. I dont see any "Third Way" in Neoliberalism. It was obviously originally intended by Alexander Rüstow but definately adapted by Ordoliberalism only, because Neoliberalism became dominated by Hayek who saw any compromise with socialisic ideas aka "the third way" as "pure evil" or "box of pandora". --Kharon (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But the sources cited refer to it as a "reassertion" of economic liberalism, which is why it's called neoliberalism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But only Alexander Rüstow used the term Neoliberalism at start, so its a retrospect that implies all participants like formaly agreed to use this term from now on, tho nothing like that is documented in any source. To the contrary multiple participants declare they reject "Neoliberal" or "Neoliberalism" as description. Prominantly Walter Eucken clearout said that and all the other Ordoliberals obviously chose to distinct themselfs later simply by using "Ordo" as prefix. Infact key elements such as this are so obviousely wrong that you may start wondering if all the Liberals are like caught in some "Matrix fake reality" and you just stumbled on this "all revealing bug". :D --Kharon (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That is an improvement to the lead. But I think it still confuses neoliberalism as a term that has had different meanings with the topic of the article. Certainly different people have used the term to mean different things at different times - "neo" can be added to anything. That can be handled through disambiguation. But the term in its current meaning came into use in the early 1990s to describe a paradigm that had emerged in the late 1970s. While it is true that some of the pioneers of the think tanks that would drive neoliberalism called themselves neoliberals in the 1930s, that had been forgotten by the 1990s. In Ian Gilmour's 1992 book Dancing with Dogma for example, he called Thatcher a "neo-Liberal," by which he meant she was returning to the economic policies of the 19th century Liberal Party. TFD (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the proposal of C.J. Griffin as well as the explanations of Kharon.

The first paragraph describes the modern meaning.

The second paragraph describes the historic meaning in the 1930th to 1960th. This is the period when neoliberals called themselves neoliberals but did not promote laisse-faire liberalism but a Third Way between classical liberalism and socialist planning (the "strong state" setting the rules for the game that is played by an otherwise free and private economy - strongly associated with the social market economy).

The third paragraph describes the change in meaning - when critics refered to laisse-faire economists as "neoliberals". --Pass3456 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider, this is a very essential core doctrin and the positions during the conference Colloque Walter Lippmann at the begin and at all the conferences of the Mont Pelerin Society over the years where diametrically opposed in this. Either you are promoting Big government or Small government. The selfdiscription of Mont Pelerin Society as (cite) "facilitate an exchange of ideas between like-minded scholars" was always preposterous. You come closer to the truth describing Neoliberalism with this epic funny line frome Stan Laurel (cite): "Septober... Octember... No wonder." [2], given readers can only get lost figuring out what Neoliberalism is about when they are only presented with all these common neoliberal legends. --Kharon (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely what is called neoliberalism today is not what was described as that in the 1930s. As I mentioned above, the first I came across the term was reading Gilmour's book in 1992, and he said that Thatcher was returning to 19th century liberalism not that she was following the Colloque. There is no evidence that any modern writer sees a connection. The term fell into disuse and was revived. Taking the term "neo" onto an ideological term is done frequently, with different meanings. But sometimes neologisms stick. TFD (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is not classroom material and needs a clean-up to be as readable as the quality content that can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. What needs to done is to restructure it in such a way as it can be read easily from top to bottom and establish a difference between its ideological origins and the monster we have today. --JamesPoulson (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy." is followed by seven references, none of which seem to identify any individuals or organisations who profess themselves or the ideas that they espouse to be 'neoliberal'. It seems extraordinary that a political or economic philosophy that is so pervasive (as claimed in this article) has no self-identified adherents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enitolo (talk • contribs) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

They do, but they use different terms: liberal, conservative, socialist, communist, Christian Democrat. Similarly, advocates of social liberalism, neoclassical liberalism and classical liberalism did not call themselves that. Clinton for example said that he followed Reagan's economic views to some degree but never used a term that described what they both followed. TFD (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberal feminism, Hillary Clinton, and BLP guidelines

Several editors, particularly Rjensen, have objected to the statement in the "Feminism" section that the neoliberal turn within mainstream feminism has contributed to the popularity of Hillary Clinton, and have repeatedly deleted that passage. They argue that because the cited source does not VERBATIM say "Clinton is a neoliberal," that it constitutes "reading between the lines" and is therefore a contentious statement. Jensen also alleges that "no other major RS makes any such allegation." But while the cited source does not say so verbatim, it very clearly identifies Clinton as being within the neoliberal tradition as described in the rest of the Neoliberalism entry. It is possible that Rjensen and others have not actually read the cited source in its entirety. And it is flagrantly false that "no other major RS" characterizes Clinton as a neoliberal (see, among many others, ). Given that the editors' objections consist entirely of red herrings and misinformed statements, they seem to reflect the editors' partisan leanings and perhaps a weak grasp of neoliberalism, not well-reasoned argument. BiblioJordan (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2016

I read the article and note that it merely says that Clinton supported neoliberal economic reforms as did btw governments everywhere. It says that "U.S. liberal feminism," which it says she follows, "lays bare that tradition’s longstanding embrace of corporate capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia." But that tradition, if one accepts the authors' viewpoint, is not something that began in the 1980s, viz., "neoliberalism," but much earlier. All of this existed in the Gilded Age for example. TFD (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are arguing that Clinton cannot be characterized as "neoliberal," I fail to see how what you just wrote helps your case. 1) You admit "Clinton supported neoliberal economic reforms", and that the cited article documents that fact. So by what logic is it unfair or inappropriate to label her a neoliberal? 2) No one implied that liberal feminism began in the 1980s. In fact, its roots go back to before the Gilded Age, as the cited article itself implies with its reference to Susan B. Anthony and other first-wave feminists. But liberal feminism's moment of origin is irrelevant to the dispute at hand (i.e., can Clinton be labeled a neoliberal?). BiblioJordan (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

1) I suggest BiblioJordan has not given due attention to 'greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research' [from wp:BLP] His neutrality??? Look at his only source: Wiki's article Solidarity (U.S.) states: Solidarity is a revolutionary socialist organization in the United States, associated with the journal Against the Current. Solidarity is an organizational descendant of International Socialists, a Trotskyist organization.... Trotskyites!! that's a far-out tiny fringe group with fringe views. 2) the source does NOT state that Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal. Indeed the term is scarcely used in this attack piece on Clinton. It accused all American feminism of longstanding embrace of corporate capitalism, racism, empire, and even heterosexism and transphobia. [p1] that's fringe. 3) it later specifies Clinton in a section entitles Something That Might Have Been Called Neocon. Neocon? The article never states that Hillary is a neoliberal--it calls her a neoconservative! that's poor sourcing for listing her as a neoliberal. 4) the BLP rule states Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is ...a conjectural interpretation of a source Here we have reading between the lines to invent a statement the source does not make. Bottom line is that BiblioJordan depends on an offbeat nonacademic Trotskyite fringe group that attacks Clinton a lot but does NOT say she is a neoliberal. that fails the BLP test [greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research] and should be immediately removed without discussion, says Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton supported neoliberal economic reforms. So did virtually every single major liberal, conservative, socialist, communist and Christian democratic parties in every country in the world. Even if you have reliable source that she is a neoliberal, you would need to show that she was so significant to the subject, that she deserves mention. Why not mention Bill Ciinton and Barack Obama for example? They are both more notable. TFD (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In Rjensen's multiple diatribes, he has neglected to offer any substantive refutation of the actual factual analysis in the cited source, repeatedly claiming without explanation that the source is not "verifiable" and relying on a slew of logical fallacies and red herrings. In this latest response, he resorts to ad hominem argument (trying to discredit an argument based on the organizational sponsor of the journal in which it appeared), based on redbaiting of a socialist organization (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ad_hominem). Yet he neglects to explain how the views conveyed in the cited source are "fringe views" (even if they were fringe views, it is incumbent upon him to show that they are WRONG, and that the source is thus unreliable, not simply unpopular). Bizarrely, Rjensen also persists with an argument contradictory to his ad hominem one, claiming that the cited source does not explicitly say "Clinton is a neoliberal." I have already explained why this claim is incorrect, and cited an additional RS to corroborate the characterization. I take Rjensen's reliance on logical fallacies to be a corroboration of my original case, and confirmation that his objection stems from a personal/partisan loyalty to his candidate rather than well-reasoned thinking. The other commenter, "The Four Deuces," acknowledges once again that "Clinton supported neoliberal economic reforms." We could, indeed, mention Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as well given both men's support for neoliberalism, but they are less directly relevant to the topic of neoliberal feminism, which is the topic of this particular section; Hillary Clinton is arguably the most visible icon of neoliberal feminism, and thus merits mention. BiblioJordan (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why the argument that the article is in a Trotskyite journal (and therefore fringe) and the argument that the article does not mention that Clinton is a neoliberal are contradictory. I agree with the other editors - the fact that Clinton has supported neoliberal policies does not mean that she should be singled out in this article, and I think that certainly WP:BLP applies here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If the source does not say Clinton is a neoliberal, then it is synthesis to say she is. The source also does not qualify as a reliable source, particularly for biographies of living persons. And we would need to establish that the opinion expressed is the consensus in reliable sources before stating it as a fact, per neutrality. Just because an opinion is published in a Trotskyist journal does not mean it has universal acceptance. So your edit breaks the three main content policies. TFD (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

To Absolutelypuremilk: You evidently did not see my above reply: We could, indeed, mention Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as well given both men's support for neoliberalism, but they are less directly relevant to the topic of neoliberal feminism, which is the topic of this particular section; Hillary Clinton is arguably the most visible icon of neoliberal feminism, and thus merits mention. [Mention of the others would also, no doubt, elicit the outrage of additional armies of zealous editors committed to preventing alleged "defamation" of their heroes] To The Four Deuces: 1) I repeat, yet again, that the source DOES say that Clinton is a neoliberal, albeit not verbatim. It is abundantly clear from the article that the authors characterize her as a neoliberal---as any neutral reader of the article with an elementary understanding of neoliberalism would agree---and even her defenders on this Talk thread admit that her economic policies are broadly neoliberal in nature. 2) On what basis are you claiming that the source in question is not an RS? Because it's "fringe"? Because it originally appeared in a journal sponsored by an organization composed largely of Trotskyists (even though the authors are not Trotskyists)? (Here I would note that you are also implicitly attacking the credibility of the various websites, including Jacobin and Alice Walker's, that have reposted the article). and 3) Numerous statements on Wikipedia do not enjoy "universal acceptance." For example, the fact of human-induced climate change is disputed by some, and many people contend that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Adopting "universal acceptance" as the standard which all arguments must meet is entirely unrealistic. In this particular case, the passage deleted by Rjensen does not even IMPLY universal acceptance of the argument made by the source; in fact, it explicitly and properly characterizes the argument as a contested argument. Contested arguments should not be banned from Wikipedia, especially when they represent viewpoints which are important for making sense of reality. I understand that you are excited about Hillary Clinton and her candidacy, but that does not mean that positions which are critical of her actions automatically "break content policies." BiblioJordan (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

1) BLP rules are violated. 2) the source is fringe: it is the in-house organ for a small group of far-left political activists. reliance on that is not neutral editing. 3) there are hundreds of RS dealing with Hillary Clinton and no one has found one that states she is a neoliberal. 4) Indeed this source does not state it either. 5) The only one who makes the explicit claim is BiblioJordan--and that makes it ORIGINAL research. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

1) BLP rules are not violated simply because you decree that they are. 2) See replies above regarding your "fringe" allegation and redbaiting. 3) I just Googled "Hillary Clinton neoliberal" and came up with a short list of 350,000 results. I read the first 5 pages of results, and many of the sources are from respected left-of-center media outlets like The Nation and Huffington Post (neither of which can possibly be described as far-left). I then went to Google Scholar and did the same, where I likewise found numerous academic articles on the Clintonian Democrats' (including Hillary's) embrace of neoliberalism. Many of the articles I found explicitly refer to her as a neoliberal, and surely at least some of those academic articles qualify as "reliable sources" in your book. So can you please, PLEASE explain to me why you continue to insist that no other source labels Clinton a neoliberal? ....Or maybe the sources I mentioned don't qualify as reliable sources, simply because the authors don't reach the proper conclusion? 4) This particular source most certainly does characterize Clinton as neoliberal, as I have already explained several times. 5) See points 3 and 4. Please stop repeating the same faulty arguments ad nauseam---that is, unless your strategy is simply to sow confusion and therefore prevent your heroine from appearing in a negative light in the Neoliberalism entry. BiblioJordan (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The section anyway is not about "neoliberal feminism," it is about feminist criticisms of neoliberalism. The source does not even mention neoliberal feminism, which is an obscure and recent topic, but "liberal feminism," which has a long history and is irrelevant to this article. TFD (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The section deals in part with trends within feminism, including "the neoliberal shift in feminism." That topic may be "obscure" to you, but to scholars of feminism it is not. The section also mentions "liberal feminism," which is a closely related concept. You do realize the meaning of the prefix "neo," right? Liberalism and neoliberalism are not wholly distinct or mutually exclusive ideologies. Would mention of fascism be "irrelevant" to an entry on neofascism? BiblioJordan (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The source for the "neoliberal shift in feminism" is "The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism," so certainly it is about neoliberal feminism. But the article does not mention Clinton and the people it does mention (Sheryl Sandberg, Anne-Marie Slaughter) are distinguished from the earlier liberal feminists such as Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem. Indeed I know what "neo" means, I successfully completed secondary school, but you need to avoid the etymological fallacy. Because neo-liberalism is not just neo+liberalism, but a distinct paradigm. Interesting by the way that neo in neoliberalism and neoconservatism have two different meanings, viz., a new form of and new to.

Also, you do not appear to have read your sources. Whatever Clinton secretly believes, there is little in her public utterances, or those of Gloria Steinem, that resemble neoliberal feminism. Clinton talks about helping little girls in the Third World and equal opportunity for all women in the U.S.

TFD (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest, without appearing too radical or outlandish, that actions and policies are a more appropriate measure of a politician than rhetoric. The article in Against the Current magazine makes that point. Indeed, as you say, Clinton's rhetoric is not consistently neoliberal. But her policy record certainly is. One of the things that distinguishes serious analyses like the Against the Current article from corporate news media and liberal punditry is that "reading the sources" means more than simply reading what a politician says; real analysis means comparing that rhetoric to the actual policy record.

BiblioJordan (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably want to review WP:DUE on this one, because that's a big reason why this isn't appropriate. There is no apparent reason to pay so much attention to this individual and not the untold number of other politicians that have undoubtedly been written about with regard to neoliberalism. Therefore, the inclusion of content on this individual introduces a WP:POV problem. TimothyJosephWood 13:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a bit of housekeeping:

• Remove Further reading already cited inline
• Remove some duplicate citations and replace with <ref name>
• Eliminate "Bibliography and further reading" section, replaced simply by "Further reading", as all included citations are not currently otherwise cited in the body of the article.

Things I've noticed that need addressed:

• WP:CRITICISM

Currently the article is about 11,300 words (text, not markup). Of this, three sections are primarily criticism sections: Criticism, Opposition, and Protest. Together they account for ~3,600 words, or about 32% of the article. This is probably overkill, and these sections should most likely to condensed and combined into a single section.

• WP:CITE

There remains a boat load of references to The Constitution of Liberty that are done in no particular format and need to be standardized. TimothyJosephWood 15:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin:, re this revert, the citations are literally the same. Same citations, same authors, same page number. I'm not really seeing what's "screwed up".

The only difference now is that it is cited twice in the reference list, instead of being cited once across all citation. Prior to my edits this was done dozens of times, making the reference list much longer than it should have been. TimothyJosephWood 15:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No. The "Neoliberalism's penal and debtor states" article is not the right source for the material in the Protest section; For Business Ethics is. This is what I corrected. Regarding the Haymes citations, those in the lede, the 2016 IMF Report section and the Opposition section (regarding economic inequality, not the carceral state and criminalization of poverty) now have wrong page numbers because of consolidation. (They should be 7, 1 & 2 and 7 respectively; not pages 3 and 346). There are still others. I recognized these errors immediately because I'm the contributor who added those materials and citations.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have corrected the problem. Note: page numbers are inline for the citation and not included in the footnote due to multiple references to the same source. See Template:Rp for details. TimothyJosephWood 15:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@BiblioJordan: the Featherstone piece has been removed because it is not relevant to this article, as it is not relevant to Feminism, where it has also been removed by myself and another editor. Even if it were a reliable source, and I don't believe it is, it does not even purport to be about neoliberalism, and it is barely about feminism, which is ostensibly its topic.

The Featherstone work is ostensibly concerning a topic that is not that of this article, and a person who is also not the topic of this article. That is why it is not appropriate. It would furthermore appear that it is included to introduce a particular POV, which is further reason for its exclusion.

Please see WP:Further reading for guidance on such sections.TimothyJosephWood 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Expanded definition

I have blanked this section. It has been tagged as WP:OR for two years now, and it appears to be basically entirely OR. All but one citation is to illustrate differing places where individuals defined the term differently, to WP:SYNTH the different definitions into a statement about academic disagreement. The only other source appears, per the link provided and scholar.google, to be an unpublished manuscript attributed to the department for which the authors worked.

More so, there is already a lengthy six paragraph section on terminology, which seems to pretty well establish that there are disagreements in usage. This raises WP:UNDUE questions about an entirely separate section for the same purpose, especially resting on one unpublished source. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Feminism and Neoliberalism

I have drastically shorted this section and linked to the corresponding section on Feminism. Feminism already has sections on political movements (socialism, facism) and how they relate to feminism. This article has no such structure in place. So feminism seems like the right place to place the full section (they were basically duplicate) and this seems like a good place to place an abridged version and a main link. TimothyJosephWood 13:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Classical liberalism in the 20th century

I have blanked this section. For multiple reasons:

• Longstanding issues with WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY.
• Fundamental problems with WP:DUE and WP:COAT. This section attempts to rewrite the main article on Classical liberalism. However, interested readers should be pointed to the main article and not made to wade through a lower quality recreation of it on a tangentially related article.
• All else in the section that is not a coatrack for the main Classical liberalism article seems to be better covered elsewhere in this article, and it therefore unnecessary. TimothyJosephWood 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Globalization

I have blanked this section per WP:OR and WP:DUE. The first two paragraphs hinge on this source which does not discuss neoliberalism at all. The third hinges on a youtube video which, by itself, does not appear to be sufficient to justify a section that barely discusses neoliberialism at all, and does so as much as it discusses neocolonialism and neoimperialism. WP:VIDEOREF and WP:NOTESSAY may also apply. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberalism vs. Economic Neoliberalism

So...as far as things that need address which require discussion, this seems like a good place to start. The article seems to be fundamentally about Neoliberalism as an economic system. So it's not really clear why where is a section half way through discussing economic neoliberalism as if it's a new thing, or subset of the overall subject of the article.

It appears well sourced, so outright blanking doesn't seem appropriate. At the same time, there doesn't seems to be any obvious place to incorporate it elsewhere in the article. Terminology seems to be the current catch-all for things that don't belong anywhere else, but it's already gigantic, and isn't really a perfect fit for this content.

Anyone have any suggestions? TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid saying neoconservatives are neoliberals. That's all I can think of right now. --DHeyward (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

It is largely an economic paradigm, but economics is not isolated from governance. For example, the view that the delivery of services should be transferred to the government where possible is justified on the basis of the perceived greater efficiency of competitive markets, but is seen as a political issue. On the other hand, communist, socialist, liberal and conservative arguments can be made to justify neoliberal reforms. TFD (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving this here in case someone can find a good solution for merging this content with the rest of the article. Literally everything here is covered in more detail in other sections, so I'm not sure how useful the content will be, but it certainly doesn't belong in the article in its current form. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Economic neoliberalism is the most common form of neoliberalism, and is what is usually meant when a system is described as neoliberal. According to Tayab Mahmud, quoting terminology from Anthony Carty

The neoliberal project is to turn the "nation-state" into a "market-state," one with the primary agenda of facilitating global capital accumulation unburdened from any legal regulations aimed at assuring welfare of citizens. In summary, neoliberalism seeks unbridled accumulation of capital through a rollback of the state, and limits its functions to minimal security and maintenance of law, fiscal and monetary discipline, flexible labor markets, and liberalization of trade and capital flows.

Economic neoliberalism is distinct from classical neoliberalism for many reasons. Hayek believed that certain elements that now make up modern economic neoliberal thought are too rationalist, relying on preconceived notions of human behaviour, such as the idea of homo economicus. Paul Treanor points out that it is too utopian, and therefore illiberal. David Harvey points out that economic neoliberalism is "theory of economic political practices", rather than a complete ideology, and therefore, no correlation or connection needs to exist between a favourable assessment of neoliberal economic practises and a commitment to liberalism proper. Likewise Anna-Maria Blomgren views neoliberalism as a continuum ranging from classical to economic liberalism. A broad and, it is hoped, clearer restatement of the above is to point out that classic liberals must be economic liberals, but economic liberals do not have to be classically liberal, and it is the latter group that makes up the "new liberalism" of economic neoliberalism.

Neoliberal economics in the 1920s took the ideas of the great liberal economists, such as Adam Smith, and updated them for the modern world. Friedrich Hayek's ideas on information flow, present in classical neoliberalism, were codified in economic form under the Austrian School as the economic calculation problem. This problem of information flow implied that a decentralised system, in which information travelled freely and was freely determined at each localised point (Hayek called this catallaxy), would be much better than a central authority trying to do the same, even if it was completely efficient and was motivated to act in the public good. In this view, the free market is a perfect example of such a system in which the market determined prices act as the information signals flowing through the economy. Actors in the economy could make decent decisions for their own businesses factoring in all the complex factors that led to market prices without having to understand or be completely aware of all of those complex factors.

References