The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.
Don’t agree with your definition of “neoliberal” really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It’s too narrow and wouldn’t fit most any politician.
This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism.
Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?
I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor “market”-based solutions to everything and “public-private” partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they’d be “ordoliberals” in your book.
Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state. Ordoliberal ideals became the foundation of the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder.
Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.
The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most “ordoliberal” or “liberal liberal” or “neoliberal” or “choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal” states, industry mostly wins.
And we’re just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).
The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx’s analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it…strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
All those are absolutely things in line with, required by, ordoliberalism. They are very much not in line with neoliberalism. Maybe you should’ve actually read the theory section of that wikipedia article you linked because it talks about unions, of welfare, progressive taxation, and definitely regulations.
Speaking of Marx: He is, via Weber, a definite influence on ordoliberalism. The Freiburg school (whence ordoliberalism) is to economics what the Frankfurt school (whence critical theory) is to sociology.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: The American mind can’t comprehend European social liberals.
Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
That may very well be. But you’re talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: The American mind can’t comprehend European social liberals.
Oh so smug, and yet still “European social liberals” are constantly on the brink of having their own outbreak of fascism.
I think that one of the few reasons the Nazi party hasn’t re-emerged in Germany is that it’s strictly forbidden by law.
But you’re talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.
Oh yes, it’s simply because the US is the US, and has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve had neoliberal politicians for approximately 50 years. All of that stuff I mentioned at the end of my last post was describing mid 20th century US politics.
Also, comments like “rule of law doesn’t work in Somalia because it’s Somalia” show me you have exactly nothing to add to any conversation about geopolitics and borders on racism.
Oh so smug, and yet still “European social liberals” are constantly on the brink of having their own outbreak of fascism.
Our implementation isn’t flawless, either. Things generally started to go downhill in the 90s when the direct ideological competitor in the form of the soviet block vanished. The rise of New Labour, a flurry of completely mismanaged privatisations, etc. The system overall is annoyingly sluggish but there very much is consciousness that that fascist stuff and that we now have a precariat are connected. Acting on that consciousness is harder.
In any case that’s not a fault of the theory itself: Things fall apart pretty precisely in those spots where it’s being ignored.
Oh yes, it’s simply because the US is the US, and has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve had neoliberal politicians for approximately 50 years.
I’m sorry yes you having that kind of politics in the past is exactly why the US is how the US is. Like, time and determinism exist. Longer than that, actually: While things went downhill in the US approximately with Nixon, you on top of that started that slide from a lower starting point. Random example: You never had a right to housing. Not just “well if Democrats are in power we might be lucky and get a social housing project” but “Can’t make rent? Can’t find an apartment? Push come to shove the state will have to pay for a hotel room and if they don’t courts will hold the mayor in contempt”. Those kinds of difference goes all the way back to rugged individualism and whatnot. Or, less detailed but not less accurate: Because the US is the US.
Also, comments like “rule of law doesn’t work in Somalia because it’s Somalia” show me you have exactly nothing to add to any conversation about geopolitics and borders on racism.
The fuck would race have to do with anything you really are American. Xeer does not have enforcement mechanisms that could deal with the current political and security situation, that’s all that I’m saying. Somalian judges can make the justest judgements the earth has ever seen, ultimately Mao is still right about gun barrels.
Those kinds of difference goes all the way back to rugged individualism and whatnot. Or, less detailed but not less accurate: Because the US is the US.
“I heard a phrase once about Americans, so that must be why they’re sliding towards fascism. It definitely can’t be for the same reasons people have pointed to for a hundred years.”
The fuck would race have to do with anything you really are American.
Right, right, it’s not that Somalia is Somalia, it’s something in their “culture”? Right?
It definitely can’t be for the same reasons people have pointed to for a hundred years.”
What are the reasons those pointed-at reasons persist? Why does is that persistence more pronounced is some places, but not others? Can there be a symptom without underlying causes?
How come e.g. the death penalty is still accepted as a topic of polite conversation in America? I maybe shouldn’t have led with rugged individualism, e.g. Australians have a similar streak in that regard, the real core of the issue is that the Enlightenment never truly arrived in the US. Jingoism, understood as the general notion of “we’re already the best it’s impossible for us to get better by learning from others” also plays a large role, I guess it’s half your isolationist streak, and half strategy by the powers that be to avoid questioning of the status quo. There’s definitely policy in place to reinforce it through the education system – from limited and navel-gazing curriculum to the pledge of allegiance which btw is fascist AF.
Right, right, it’s not that Somalia is Somalia, it’s something in their “culture”? Right?
I specifically mentioned Xeer, no need on your part to speculate, or pretend I wasn’t being clear.
What are the reasons those pointed-at reasons persist? Why does is that persistence more pronounced is some places, but not others? Can there be a symptom without underlying causes?
Read theory if you’re actually curious and not just posting to post. Personally, I’ve come to think of inequality as being at the center of it all.
But the reason is certainly not “because <<country>> is <<country>>”.
Read theory if you’re actually curious and not just posting to post. Personally, I’ve come to think of inequality as being at the center of it all.
Inequality doesn’t just turn up out of nowhere.
But the reason is certainly not “because <<country>> is <<country>>”.
I never claimed “because country is country” is a deep and meaningful analysis of the material factors in a given country and its history. What it is, and what I expect people with a modicum of knowledge of the English language to understand it as, is vaguely gesturing at the overall situation and saying “this thing here that be the way it do”. You know, pizza is tasty because it’s pizza does one always have to be more specific than that.
Why would anyone post this? Of course it didn’t just turn up out of nowhere.
What it is, and what I expect people with a modicum of knowledge of the English language to understand it as, is vaguely gesturing at the overall situation and saying “this thing here that be the way it do”.
That quoted phrase you have there is pure hot nonsense.
Don’t agree with your definition of “neoliberal” really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It’s too narrow and wouldn’t fit most any politician.
Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?
I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor “market”-based solutions to everything and “public-private” partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they’d be “ordoliberals” in your book.
Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.
The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most “ordoliberal” or “liberal liberal” or “neoliberal” or “choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal” states, industry mostly wins.
And we’re just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).
The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx’s analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it…strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
All those are absolutely things in line with, required by, ordoliberalism. They are very much not in line with neoliberalism. Maybe you should’ve actually read the theory section of that wikipedia article you linked because it talks about unions, of welfare, progressive taxation, and definitely regulations.
Speaking of Marx: He is, via Weber, a definite influence on ordoliberalism. The Freiburg school (whence ordoliberalism) is to economics what the Frankfurt school (whence critical theory) is to sociology.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: The American mind can’t comprehend European social liberals.
That may very well be. But you’re talking about the US, specifically. Complaining about regulation not working in the US is like complaining that rule of law is a non-starter in Somalia: The issue is not the idea of the rule of law, but Somalia being Somalia.
Oh so smug, and yet still “European social liberals” are constantly on the brink of having their own outbreak of fascism.
I think that one of the few reasons the Nazi party hasn’t re-emerged in Germany is that it’s strictly forbidden by law.
Oh yes, it’s simply because the US is the US, and has nothing to do with the fact that we’ve had neoliberal politicians for approximately 50 years. All of that stuff I mentioned at the end of my last post was describing mid 20th century US politics.
Also, comments like “rule of law doesn’t work in Somalia because it’s Somalia” show me you have exactly nothing to add to any conversation about geopolitics and borders on racism.
Our implementation isn’t flawless, either. Things generally started to go downhill in the 90s when the direct ideological competitor in the form of the soviet block vanished. The rise of New Labour, a flurry of completely mismanaged privatisations, etc. The system overall is annoyingly sluggish but there very much is consciousness that that fascist stuff and that we now have a precariat are connected. Acting on that consciousness is harder.
In any case that’s not a fault of the theory itself: Things fall apart pretty precisely in those spots where it’s being ignored.
I’m sorry yes you having that kind of politics in the past is exactly why the US is how the US is. Like, time and determinism exist. Longer than that, actually: While things went downhill in the US approximately with Nixon, you on top of that started that slide from a lower starting point. Random example: You never had a right to housing. Not just “well if Democrats are in power we might be lucky and get a social housing project” but “Can’t make rent? Can’t find an apartment? Push come to shove the state will have to pay for a hotel room and if they don’t courts will hold the mayor in contempt”. Those kinds of difference goes all the way back to rugged individualism and whatnot. Or, less detailed but not less accurate: Because the US is the US.
The fuck would race have to do with anything you really are American. Xeer does not have enforcement mechanisms that could deal with the current political and security situation, that’s all that I’m saying. Somalian judges can make the justest judgements the earth has ever seen, ultimately Mao is still right about gun barrels.
“I heard a phrase once about Americans, so that must be why they’re sliding towards fascism. It definitely can’t be for the same reasons people have pointed to for a hundred years.”
Right, right, it’s not that Somalia is Somalia, it’s something in their “culture”? Right?
What are the reasons those pointed-at reasons persist? Why does is that persistence more pronounced is some places, but not others? Can there be a symptom without underlying causes?
How come e.g. the death penalty is still accepted as a topic of polite conversation in America? I maybe shouldn’t have led with rugged individualism, e.g. Australians have a similar streak in that regard, the real core of the issue is that the Enlightenment never truly arrived in the US. Jingoism, understood as the general notion of “we’re already the best it’s impossible for us to get better by learning from others” also plays a large role, I guess it’s half your isolationist streak, and half strategy by the powers that be to avoid questioning of the status quo. There’s definitely policy in place to reinforce it through the education system – from limited and navel-gazing curriculum to the pledge of allegiance which btw is fascist AF.
I specifically mentioned Xeer, no need on your part to speculate, or pretend I wasn’t being clear.
Read theory if you’re actually curious and not just posting to post. Personally, I’ve come to think of inequality as being at the center of it all.
But the reason is certainly not “because <<country>> is <<country>>”.
Inequality doesn’t just turn up out of nowhere.
I never claimed “because country is country” is a deep and meaningful analysis of the material factors in a given country and its history. What it is, and what I expect people with a modicum of knowledge of the English language to understand it as, is vaguely gesturing at the overall situation and saying “this thing here that be the way it do”. You know, pizza is tasty because it’s pizza does one always have to be more specific than that.
Why would anyone post this? Of course it didn’t just turn up out of nowhere.
That quoted phrase you have there is pure hot nonsense.