The death of neoliberalism from within • Hacker News Board

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#91

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 7:53 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #75

logfromblammo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A truly free market has a price for contract killings--including, for instance, the current CEO of Bank of America, or the current chairman of the Fed, or someone like Bernie Madoff. If the wealthy make a figurative "killing" abusing the poor, the poor turn around and make a literal killing. An unethical executive would have to hole up in a fortified compound and surround it with hired guns, just like a Mexican drug…

Even if we assume the extreme, almost cartoonish version of free market, in which every possible transaction is legal, that still doesn't mean the action itself has to be. So you could have a market for contract killings - but you'd still be imprisoned for actually killing.

In a cartoonishly free market, law frameworks are also commodities, not enforced monopolies. Law enforcement is a paid service; there are no tax revenues to support it.

If you hire the Morag Tong to murder your business rival--who has no friends or partners ready to avenge his untimely death--who will be the one to hire Sam and Max to play freelance police long enough to bring you to justice?

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#92

Post by kiruwa » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 8:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

kiruwa wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is rather silly. You've altered the definition of "free market" to the scope of things on the market, rather than the regulation of the market itself. Although some free marketers (and many others) argue that things like prostitution should be "liberated" from prohibition, that's generally tangential to the arguments. Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms…

Most free market advocates (and lots of people who aren't particularly inclined that way ideologically, but who analyze impacts of policy rather than superficial forms) view prohibitions (and the associated enforcement) as just one form of imposition of regulatory costs on a transaction. > Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that…

> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial.

If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process.

We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question.

The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You can make an economic argument for the south, but it's still a stretch) Fundamentally it's a moral/social/political question, that has tremendous economic effects.

----

I'd actually argue the contrary. There are almost no "economic" arguments when it comes to regulation. Any argument worth having is fundamentally moral or social.

* How much taxation is "fair"

* What level of economic inequality violates "justice"

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#93

Post by marricks » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 8:44 PM UTC

pdeuchler wrote: post #61

marricks wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) I'm discussing the narrative, the poster only cites over-regulation as a problem, which I haven't seen bail-outs called before. The language implies government rules are the problem. 2) Many notable economists actually blame deregulation, such as Alan Greenspan & the SEC [0]. I think the man who oversaw much of the deregulation while it was happening calling it a problem in hindsight is a pretty darn good indicati…

Nobody is arguing for deregulation. We just want government regulation that doesn't overtly protect the wealth of the ruling class. Stop perpetuating false dichotomies that preclude valid criticism of current policies.

Hmm, I see how I could be seen as doing that.

Thanks for the reply!

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#94

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 8:46 PM UTC

kiruwa wrote: post #92

dragonwriter wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most free market advocates (and lots of people who aren't particularly inclined that way ideologically, but who analyze impacts of policy rather than superficial forms) view prohibitions (and the associated enforcement) as just one form of imposition of regulatory costs on a transaction. > Usually, legal arguments about what can be bought or sold are settled in social/political terms, economics isn't really all that…

> The difference between "social/political" and "economic" is superficial. If you're including all issues that have economic effects, perhaps I'd agree with you. But I'm talking about the decision-making process. We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm. It's a moral question. The same is true of slavery from the North's perspective in the US civil war. (You c…

> But I'm talking about the decision-making process.

So am I. The decision making process that goes into "social/political" things is pretty much economic.

> We don't decide whether global warming needs to be addressed using a profit-maximization algorithm.

Social/political decision making is aggregating individual efforts to maximize the world's alignment with each individual's own preferences.

There's no difference between this and economic decision making.

> It's a moral question.

"Morality" is just one subset of personal preferences against which people act to optimize. The distinction between it and other subsets of preferences (like "aesthetics", etc.) is arbitrary.

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#95

Post by andrenth » Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 11:46 PM UTC

generj wrote: post #89

Snargorf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets don't exist without states? Do you not believe that markets existed 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago, in areas that were tribal or feudal or in anarchy? Do you not believe that markets exist in Somalia and other conflict zones today, where there is no functioning government? Markets exist any time there are two or more people with goods that they could and would trade.

1) Tribes/Feudal Lords ARE government, albeit often not effective/efficient government. 2) You'll find that in an anarchy situation, mysteriously there is some market governing force...like a tribe, or guilds, or even just a shared understanding of how the market/society is to function. Even mob justice is a sort of governance, and the definition of what the mob will allow before uprising is the law of the land... 3)…

> Free markets by definition require things like homogeneous products and perfect information. Perfect information has never existed in a conflict zone, and it never will.

This is so absolutely wrong that I'm curious from which reference you got it from.

The very reason free markets work is because of heterogeneous products, allowing for competition, and for the fact that perfect information does not exist.

In a free market each actor only needs the information necessary to run his enterprise, contrary to a centrally planned economy such as a totalitarian state or today's central banks, which require (and think they have) perfect information, leading to bubbles, poverty, chaos.

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#96

Post by coupdetaco » Sat, Jun 04, 2016, 12:49 AM UTC

elgabogringo wrote: post #13

Neoliberalism is not a school of economic thought. It's not an actual ideology that anyone associates themselves with. It's a word without any concrete meaning thrown around in order to avoid real discussion. The free market is not failing. Current markets that are failing are hardly "free." What is failing is a system of government regulation and control that supports wall street and the rich at the expense of the m…

You seem confused. neoliberalism is a term used to critique what certain people told us they were doing. The term is Very Necessary to understand the United States right now. But don't take my word for it!

http://majority.fm/tag/wendy-brown/

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#97

Post by coupdetaco » Sat, Jun 04, 2016, 12:57 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #60

wfo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is an explicit ideology that many associate themselves with (though not by name, since it's become something of a slur because it's so obviously religious about the "free market" and hated because of this). It's explained clearly in TFA. Of course, the classic rabid libertarian answer -- any time any economic failure happens, blame regulations. When we free the markets, and the markets fail to provide an…

Noam Chomsky, that rabid right-wing libertarian: What’s called the capitalist system is very far from any model of capitalism or market. Take the fossil fuels industries: there was a recent study by the IMF which tried to estimate the subsidy that energy corporations get from governments. The total was colossal. I think it was around $5 trillion annually. That’s got nothing to do with markets and capitalism. https://…

capitalists don't like competition because the goal is to make a profit

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#98

Post by coupdetaco » Sat, Jun 04, 2016, 1:14 AM UTC

elgabogringo wrote: post #13

Neoliberalism is not a school of economic thought. It's not an actual ideology that anyone associates themselves with. It's a word without any concrete meaning thrown around in order to avoid real discussion. The free market is not failing. Current markets that are failing are hardly "free." What is failing is a system of government regulation and control that supports wall street and the rich at the expense of the m…

Ah! You see, you have entered into a disagreement amongst them!

Plenty of neoliberals, aka folks who think competition is the best and that competition brings out the best in everything, still believe that you still have to first organize markets and make sure they are competitive, i.e. It is not the natural state of things in each and every realm of life.

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#99

Post by coupdetaco » Sat, Jun 04, 2016, 2:22 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #60

wfo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is an explicit ideology that many associate themselves with (though not by name, since it's become something of a slur because it's so obviously religious about the "free market" and hated because of this). It's explained clearly in TFA. Of course, the classic rabid libertarian answer -- any time any economic failure happens, blame regulations. When we free the markets, and the markets fail to provide an…

Noam Chomsky, that rabid right-wing libertarian: What’s called the capitalist system is very far from any model of capitalism or market. Take the fossil fuels industries: there was a recent study by the IMF which tried to estimate the subsidy that energy corporations get from governments. The total was colossal. I think it was around $5 trillion annually. That’s got nothing to do with markets and capitalism. https://…

Noam Chompsky refutes right-wing libertarianism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg

Re: The death of neoliberalism from within

#100

Post by coupdetaco » Sat, Jun 04, 2016, 2:25 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #30

elgabogringo wrote: post #13

Neoliberalism is not a school of economic thought. It's not an actual ideology that anyone associates themselves with. It's a word without any concrete meaning thrown around in order to avoid real discussion. The free market is not failing. Current markets that are failing are hardly "free." What is failing is a system of government regulation and control that supports wall street and the rich at the expense of the m…

Markets don't exist without States. You cannot have a market without a State, and therefore you cannot have a "free market". They don't exists. The idea that there is or can be a free market is one of the great myths of our civilization (along with the idea that humans started out with barter based economies. We didn't. The earliest economies in human history were based around credit). I highly recommend the book Deb…

Similarly, governments cannot exist without some taxable profits (aka business)