Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#51

Post by dalbasal »

charliesharding wrote: post #15

"Yet too many economists believe their quantitative tools and theoretical lenses are the only ones that count as “scientific,” leading them to dismiss disciplines that rely more on qualitative analysis and verbal theorizing" Sorry if I don't want to trust the fate of the nation's economy to someone's well intentioned verbal theorizing and 'qualitative' analysis. What could go wrong? (lol) I thought HN liked and trust…

The two "neoliberals" identified in this article are Hayek and Friedman.

Hayek absolutely did not believe that his "quantitive and theoretical lens" counts as scientific. Apart from economics he's known as an opponent of scientism.

I don't believe Friedman believed his theories to be scientific either.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#53

Post by skybrian »

CPLX wrote: post #49
skybrian wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, what's an example?

Attempting to reform national health care but thinking it's possible to preserve for profit health insurance companies as part of the mix.

You mean like in Switzerland? [1] I think the mistake here is being overconfident. Most of us (including me) don't know much about heath care economics.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#54

Post by johnchristopher »

fallingfrog wrote: post #21
beat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social outcome is a political problem, not a scientific one. We should decide what we want society to look like, and use the scientifically/mathematically understood systems of economics to steer us in that direction. I don't think the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics were intended to deliver the results we are seeing today. They would not have predicted the drastic disparities, or the insecurity of working pe…

I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.

Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#55

Post by charliesharding »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #50
charliesharding wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a strawman by quoting directly from the article where the author was criticizing traditional economists for relying on quantitative analysis as prescribed by the scientific method?

Yes, and you are doing it again. "Yet too many economists believe their quantitative tools and theoretical lenses are the only ones that count as “scientific,” ..." Economist want to believe that economics is "scientific", while is clearly not, and you keep hinting that they are "relying on quantitative analysis as prescribed by the scientific method".

Are you saying that the scientific method cannot be applied to economics? :O

While qualitative analysis can be considered empirical, it's not something often seen when money is concerned and the stakes are high. Most often you will see papers relying on qualitative methods in the "soft sciences" such as social science. Not to mention "verbal theorizing".. this is the kind of stuff that gets laughed out of real conversations.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#56

Post by antidesitter »

goodpoint wrote: post #46
fallingfrog wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.

"smoking gun" is an understatement. neo-liberalism: "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism." The movement has been very right wing, pro-corporate and pro-billionaire since the beginning.

What do you mean by "right wing" here? Do you just mean "capitalist"?

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#57

Post by antidesitter »

fallingfrog wrote: post #30
beat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.

But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.

Are you trying to draw an analogy between market-friendly policies and stealing your wallet?

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#58

Post by fallingfrog »

johnchristopher wrote: post #54
fallingfrog wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.

Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.

Precisely so. Let me give you an example: in medieval times it was taken as fact that the king's authority came from God, that god wanted you to obey, and so forth. That sounds absurd today, but at the time no other point of view was available. The way to see through that belief is to ask, who does that belief benefit? It was in the material interest of the king to promulgate such a belief system regardless of whether it was true. In the same sense it's now in the material interest of the investor and political class to promulgate the belief that unfettered capitalism is the only rational economic system. But who benefits?

This isn't my own original idea mind you. Marx called it "dialectical materialism".

Certain scientific facts can be proven. You can measure things like the speed of light for instance. But ideology always reflects the material interest of some group or another.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#59

Post by Fnoord »

charliesharding wrote: post #47
Fnoord wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA [1] It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA [2] It is about tax avoidance in the USA, and increasing taxation for the very rich, and how the discussion about it is being avoided as recently happened on Fox News or at the conference in Davos, Switzerland [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [2…

1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesse…

1) Ah, the "the rich will leave!" card. The rich won't leave if you fight the problem under an international flag, and all their businesses will be accounted for. Even if all the rich want to live solely in the Bahama's or Cayman Islands, let them be. If large countries plot together its not like you can't boycott such small countries. Just like almost the entire world has copyright laws. See also #3.

2) The problem is that large companies such as Amazon don't pay tax which by itself is unfair. On top of that, the side effect is that small and medium businesses [on a worldwide scale] cannot compete with them, leading to less competition which is bad for the customer and bad for the economy. And it isn't just Amazon. It is also for example Starbucks, who pay no tax whatsoever whilst local coffee shops diminish.

3) Not addressing the topic of tax avoidance is political unwillingness kept intact by the rich world elite who give breadcrumbs to servants such as Tucker Carlson.

4) Given the conference was visited by billionaire philanthropists who avoid taxes, it was a highly insightful and appropriate comment.

> it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.

If you give me billions of USD I can also promise you I will be a pillar of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity. The lack of these is caused by the inequality. If people wouldn't live in poverty, their happiness would increase, and they'd be more productive in society; not less. Instead, they're being squeezed out.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#60

Post by CharlesColeman »

beat wrote: post #23
fallingfrog wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.

I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.

> No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.

I do too. I think their primary motive was selfish and short-signed motivated reasoning about the effects of their ideas. They ignored how those ideas could harm others because they were so captivated by how they could help themselves.

Post reply on HN