Free markets, John, by neo liberal definition, are those devoid of government regulations, so it's use of politics is to rid the market of government regulations, that is why a major cause of Republicans is to dismantle the administrative state.
Free markets, John, by neo liberal definition, are those devoid of government regulations, so it's use of politics is to rid the market of government regulations, that is why a major cause of Republicans is to dismantle the administrative state.
Correct. But to "rid the market of government regulation" you must have CONTROL of government policy, as the 1938 Lippman meeting concluded. Hence, neo-liberals use control of politics as a vehicle to establish de-regulated policies. Neo-liberals successfully lobbied Jimmy Carter (and Congress) to dramatically reduce Cap Gains tax rates in the late 1970s. This was followed by Reagan-Thatcher going "all-in" on neo-liberal policies in the 1980s, which dramatically reduced govt regulation while also reducing net tax rates on ultra-high incomes. Since 1980, these neo-liberal policies have redistributed HALF of middle-class wealth into the top 10%, and mostly the top 1%, and mostly again into the top 0.1%. At current rate of wealth redistribution, by 2050 the U.S. will become a kind of serfdom, with over 50% of national wealth held by the top 2% families and trusts.
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
Yes, neo liberals use government to achieve their ends of an unregulated free market. The statement is intuitively obvious. How else can they achieve that end, and as a matter of fact, that is what much of the political battle field is really all about.
The billionaires and corporations use the power of money, to buy politicians and political powers so they can neuter the government and the agencies created to control them. Nixon created the EPA, and the money powers have been after it (Big Ag, Mining, the Chemical Petroleum cabal) to defang and neuter it or just shut it's doors.
Shut down OSHA the NLRB, anything that interferes the ability of billionaires to buy a new Jet airliner or build a refugee on a mountain top or under the ocean.
OK. I am not arguing with you. What then do you propose as a solution? So neo liberals have screwed up the country, no argument here. They have used the immense power of the purse, to gain favor, no argument there, they have done it with Republicans and Democrats, no argument there.
It's less of an argument, and more of a treatise on fundamental greed and fundamental power, perhaps baked in to the human evolutionary condition. A class-cycle that has repeated itself throughout recorded history.
On that we agree, it started when a dude dressed in animal skins picked up the jawbone of an ass or leg of a mammoth and clubbed others into submission.
Free markets, John, by neo liberal definition, are those devoid of government regulations, so it's use of politics is to rid the market of government regulations, that is why a major cause of Republicans is to dismantle the administrative state.
Correct. But to "rid the market of government regulation" you must have CONTROL of government policy, as the 1938 Lippman meeting concluded. Hence, neo-liberals use control of politics as a vehicle to establish de-regulated policies. Neo-liberals successfully lobbied Jimmy Carter (and Congress) to dramatically reduce Cap Gains tax rates in the late 1970s. This was followed by Reagan-Thatcher going "all-in" on neo-liberal policies in the 1980s, which dramatically reduced govt regulation while also reducing net tax rates on ultra-high incomes. Since 1980, these neo-liberal policies have redistributed HALF of middle-class wealth into the top 10%, and mostly the top 1%, and mostly again into the top 0.1%. At current rate of wealth redistribution, by 2050 the U.S. will become a kind of serfdom, with over 50% of national wealth held by the top 2% families and trusts.
John L. - You're absolutely correct. This probably sounds strange to William Farrar, so may I quote from my favourite book on neoliberalism, namely "The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society", by Dardot and Laval:
"... far from clashing with the logic of competition, [the government's] task is to remove all the obstacles to the free play of the markets by a veritable policing of the markets, one example of which is the struggle against cartels" (p. 86). - "The state must obviously start by respecting equality of opportunity in the competitive game, by abolishing anything that might resemble priviledge or protection granted to some special interest at the expense of others. One of the doctrine's main arguments, which we come across in other liberal currents, is that one of the principal tendencies in capitalism - excessive concentration and cartelization of industry - is not endogenous in nature, but originates in policies of priviledge and protection pursued by the state when it is under the control of large private interests. This is why a 'strong state', capable of resisting all pressure groups and free of 'Manchester School' dogmas of the minimum state, is required" (p. 88).
It's interesting, isn't it, that according to neoliberalism, in order to achieve 'free markets', a very strong state must ensure through regulation that the markets remains 'free'.
It just occurred to me that when Hayek wrote "Road to Serfdom" he probably never realized that serfdom would be caused by his own ideology.
Hayek's quarrel was with those who favored a planned economy, not with market regulation. Later in life he explicitly broke with libertarianism, and argued that a modern economy needed a safety net for the less fortunate.
Libertarian ism leads inevitably to serfdom, For it to succeed requires the cooperation of like minded individuals, who respect each other and voluntarily accept the consensus opinion of everyone else.
Doesn't happen in reality, a strong man will emerge, then the strong mans cup bearers, his chamberlain,his courtiers and before you know it back to serfdom.
John, and Gunnar, I'm so sorry that the word "liberal" is part of that movement's lexicon, the way I don't like the word "socialism" in the title: National Socialism (Hitler's fascism). Whenever you see this kind of cross-over it's not a good sign.
Which sounds like an oxymoron. Seems that Trump though would like to fiddle as he sees fit. Sounds like a set up to me.
Yes, neo liberals use government to achieve their ends of an unregulated free market. The statement is intuitively obvious. How else can they achieve that end, and as a matter of fact, that is what much of the political battle field is really all about.
The billionaires and corporations use the power of money, to buy politicians and political powers so they can neuter the government and the agencies created to control them. Nixon created the EPA, and the money powers have been after it (Big Ag, Mining, the Chemical Petroleum cabal) to defang and neuter it or just shut it's doors.
Shut down OSHA the NLRB, anything that interferes the ability of billionaires to buy a new Jet airliner or build a refugee on a mountain top or under the ocean.
OK. I am not arguing with you. What then do you propose as a solution? So neo liberals have screwed up the country, no argument here. They have used the immense power of the purse, to gain favor, no argument there, they have done it with Republicans and Democrats, no argument there.
So where is the argument?
It's less of an argument, and more of a treatise on fundamental greed and fundamental power, perhaps baked in to the human evolutionary condition. A class-cycle that has repeated itself throughout recorded history.
On that we agree, it started when a dude dressed in animal skins picked up the jawbone of an ass or leg of a mammoth and clubbed others into submission.