31–40 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Participation by elites in a group that might at one point have had negative connotations is a sign of it being rehabilitated.
Participation by elites in neoliberalism was the reason why the term has a negative connotation in the first place...
This means that they must believe it has become defendable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who do you believe is discovering a 30 year old term here? You claimed that that blog post "rehabilitates" the term. I'm saying that the general beliefs that the author describes are well-trod ground within neoliberalism. He's describing himself as a third way neoliberal with slightly more libertarian tendencies. Have you heard of the Adam Smith Institute? It is a neoliberal think-tank and over the years many of its…
The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd. That post rehabilitated neoliberalism. There is now a community of people that use the term this way. Many have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter. Memes are created by its fans. CEOs of huge startups drop-in to do AMAs, etc. To say that there has been no change in how…
In other words, an argument from authority.
To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few year is utterly ridiculous.
You may be in an echo chamber because in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about.
Can't disagree with you that there may be a change in how it's been viewed, but to state that the "post rehabilitated neoliberalism" is equally if not more utterly ridiculous. Not to one up you, but please realize that. You're talking a Medium blog post vs how hundreds of millions of people view the term (whether they know what it is or not).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some circles it was never a negative term to begin with. In other circles it will remain a negative term forever, regardless of what you do. One interesting consequence of the Internet is that we're becoming very aware that for every label you could ascribe to yourself, there is some group out there who holds a deep, visceral hate for that label, so deep that they wish you would just cease to exist. I guess this w…
I don't talk about extremists. The term itself was hardly known/in use to the general public before the crash 2008 and occupy. Since then it was only known as basically a different word for greed. As another commenter (who obviously decided to delete his comment) wrote here, I also doubt that a re-branding will ever be successful. It's not like coming up with a new term in economy is something hard to do.
Also, the term is still not known/in use to the general public. The set of people who are politically active via Occupy, Tea Party, Trumpism, #Indivisible, etc. is a small subset of all people, and relatively disjoint from the set of people with successful Internet-based businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Participation by elites in neoliberalism was the reason why the term has a negative connotation in the first place...
My point is "they don't participate if it's inherently smearing". They are careful about their public selves. This means that they must believe it has become defendable.
I was thinking of financial elites btw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd. That post rehabilitated neoliberalism. There is now a community of people that use the term this way. Many have tens of thousands of followers on Twitter. Memes are created by its fans. CEOs of huge startups drop-in to do AMAs, etc. To say that there has been no change in how…
The point isn't to wow you with credentials. The point is that your previous insistence that this definition isn't correct or common is absurd. In other words, an argument from authority. To say that there has been no change in how the term is used or perceived over the last few year is utterly ridiculous. You may be in an echo chamber because in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about. Can't di…
If you are powerful and interconnected with government then the way that you use political terms has a large impact on their meaning.
One of the most powerful think-tanks in the world uses the term this way. That has a real world impact.
Given this, your insistence that "in politics and academics this rehabilitation is not known about" is absurd.
You are right that millions of people probably have no idea or still have a negative opinion of globalisation, etc, however I do not think that this is mutually exclusive with it being rehabilitated in some circles and notably so.
Interesting to see individuals show pride in the “neoliberal” label, which is usually a stand-in for “complacent”.
This doesn't fit neatly under any other label as far as I can tell, least of all "neoliberal." It's most closely aligned with centre-left policy, though from a very different value system (more utilitarian than about uniting the working class against their evil overlords).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't talk about extremists. The term itself was hardly known/in use to the general public before the crash 2008 and occupy. Since then it was only known as basically a different word for greed. As another commenter (who obviously decided to delete his comment) wrote here, I also doubt that a re-branding will ever be successful. It's not like coming up with a new term in economy is something hard to do.
I doubt any of that matters to Stripe, whose customer base consists of small-to-midsize businesses who need to accept payments over the Internet, oftentimes for marketplace-based business models. By virtue of the problem that they want solved, this group is going to skew towards free markets, free trade, globalization, and all the tenets that r/neoliberalism embraces. They may not themselves want to adopt the label (…
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
So you agree that there was no rehabilitation then?
I still don't understand why you wouldn't just come up with a new term. Is this bad marketing knowledge or intentional?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with you on this. I think that the existence of the AMA itself proves that at least in some circles you can.
Look at the posts there, it's people having fun with people who identity as neoliberal without any sense of irony. Neoliberal is a dirty word among pretty much every group of contemporary politically minded folks.
Take a look at this for example: https://twitter.com/r_neoliberal/status/974992740982370305?s...
Chief Neoliberal Shill is clearly a joke, but these people do believe in the positive consequences of what they're doing.
>It reminds me in some ways of net neutrality: yes, fast lanes and slow lanes have real downsides. But there's vast capex required to build the infrastructure we need. How should that be paid for? Defending credit card fees by criticizing net-neutrality. I guess at least he’s being interviewed in the right subreddit...
> These steep fees also fund (a) vast extension of consumer credit, (b) massive card distribution programs, and (c) the downsides of a generally frictionless payment method (occasional fraud losses), all of which together yields higher spending for merchants. This is a bit disingenuous. He makes it sound like these fees are the primary income for card companies, but that's not the case. Interchange and merchant fees…
It shouldn't even affect Stripe all that much. The CC fees are just a pass-through expense for them; their product is the infrastructure value-add, which AFAIK nobody is suggesting needs to be price-regulated.
One of the reasons the Federal Reserve was created was to eliminate rent-seeking by banks in check clearing. (The previous system was that banks would clear checks directly among each other, leading to abuses where banks would charge exorbitant fees to other banks.) I'd argue credit/debit cards are just as important today as checks were in 1913. A functioning economy requires a functioning payment system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to read that several times and I still can't understand his argument. Perhaps the phrasing didn't come out as he intended.
He is defending allowing companies with significant capex to collect rents, with the justification that if the rents were not allowed then the capex would not be expended.