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

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#41

Post by dalbasal »

Almost any article about neoliberalism is at least somewhat disingenuous. It's mostly a term that gets used by critics, and it groups together movements that aren't related and don't call themselves neoliberals.

I can't recall any proponents of neoliberalism.

This article is a good example. Everything is euphamized (neoliberalism is market fetishism). Nothing is addressed directly. There's a disagreement between camps, but nowhere does it bother to delve into what they disagree about specifically.

It's also simply not true that economics is monolithic, or that the majority of policies are based in economics of any flavour.

The EU was (i suppose, see first paragraph) a neoliberalism exercise. It promoted free trade, and dismantled all sorts of industrial structures and regulations as part of that. But, the actual goal was peace, moreso than prosperity. The history of us-china trade is similar.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#42

Post by wycy »

eanzenberg wrote: post #26

I get this is parroted ad nauseum but the reason for rising inequality (and a reduction in the middle class) in the US is mobility of people from the bottom and middle to the upper class.

That is not even a little bit true. The exact opposite of that has been taking place: a reduction in upward mobility between socioeconomic classes.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#43

Post by rmah »

CPLX wrote: post #34
skybrian wrote: post #24

Headline is clickbait and it's not the article's headline. In practice, on the Internet "neoliberalism" seems to be a word used by people who dislike capitalism and want another abstract enemy to complain about. If you're not doing that, the word doesn't seem very useful? But the folks behind this article seem to want to do educational outreach about economics research and that does seem useful.

Neoliberalism is a word that is used to describe policymakers who seem ignorant of the fact that indiscriminately resorting to "market forces" often leads to undesirable outcomes.

They're not ignorant of it, they simply don't care. They don't care because the public good is not, never has been, and never will be, the primary goal of politicians and bureaucrats. They spout "economics" rhetoric to support the policies they want because it helps garner support from certain sectors of society. They only do that because, in a representative democratic system, they need to maintain support else they will lose the power to do what they want. So the solution should be obvious (which doesn't imply that it's easy).

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#44

Post by skybrian »

CPLX wrote: post #34
skybrian wrote: post #24

Headline is clickbait and it's not the article's headline. In practice, on the Internet "neoliberalism" seems to be a word used by people who dislike capitalism and want another abstract enemy to complain about. If you're not doing that, the word doesn't seem very useful? But the folks behind this article seem to want to do educational outreach about economics research and that does seem useful.

Neoliberalism is a word that is used to describe policymakers who seem ignorant of the fact that indiscriminately resorting to "market forces" often leads to undesirable outcomes.

Okay, what's an example?

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#45

Post by charliesharding »

antidesitter wrote: post #35
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…

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that…

I agree but I understand where they were coming from. It's easy to point out flaws in any system and it's something I'm seeing more and more in politics and religion. People are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's easy to become blind to the benefits of the system you are raised within until the revolutionaries tip the scales and then the system resets through widespread suffering.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#46

Post by goodpoint »

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.

"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.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#47

Post by charliesharding »

Fnoord wrote: post #39
antidesitter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that…

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, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#48

Post by antidesitter »

Fnoord wrote: post #39
antidesitter wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that…

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…

Your comment is severely lacking in numbers that would indicate market-friendly policies have been a "failure".

> It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA

How has this number changed over time, compared to previous time periods?

> It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA

How has the actual income of poor people changed in the same time period?

> It is about tax avoidance in the USA

Please explain how the statement "tax avoidance in the USA" proves market-friendly policies have been a "failure".

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#49

Post by CPLX »

skybrian wrote: post #44
CPLX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neoliberalism is a word that is used to describe policymakers who seem ignorant of the fact that indiscriminately resorting to "market forces" often leads to undesirable outcomes.

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.

Re: Neoliberalism Is a Simplistic Perversion of Economics

#50

Post by eeZah7Ux »

charliesharding wrote: post #37
eeZah7Ux wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a strawman. "the scientific process" has very little to do with economics.

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".

Post reply on HN