What do you guys think of a Neo-Liberalism?

Economics Economics Questions
1

Quoted from another post

Defining it here basically as: Light regulation, relatively free private markets, efficient social safety net that is less paternalistic than the patchwork of in-kind transfers and direct subsidies we currently have, favoring a light touch when it comes to dealing with externalities through things like Pigouvian taxation instead of hard regulation, ultimately favoring complete free trade, relatively low broad-based taxation that aims to cause as few economic disruptions as possible, then favoring a social agenda somewhere between progressivism and libertarianism. (Pro gay marriage, pro drug legalization+some consumer protection legislation, pro-1964 Civil Rights Act but abandoning most of the more anachronistic racial politics of progressivism)

Why it isn’t Conservatism
Pretty obvious really, completely different social agenda. Drops the anti-intellectualism and “moral values” aspect. Also favors more environmental intervention. If we’re talking Paleoconservatives, then support for free trade could also go here. Less supportive of interventionist foreign policy, more supportive of international organizations like the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Why it isn’t Libertarianism
Fine with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, generally more pragmatic/utilitarian, supports social welfare provisions as long as they’re administered reasonably, fine with reasonable levels of regulation designed to protect consumers or workers. More supportive of international organizations like the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Why it isn’t Liberalism/Progressivism
No knee jerk outrage over deregulation/privatization. Favors less government economic intervention overall, opposed to measures designed to increase equality that also significantly disrupt economic incentives and instead favor greater reliance on direct means tested subsidies (ie rent control, the minimum wage and all other welfare provisions should be replaced by NIT or subsidized forced savings), supports free trade, significantly less in favor of hard regulations in situations where Pigouvian taxes or other soft measures would better preserve proper incentives.

So in other words, poor people aren’t starving in the streets, very high levels of freedom are preserved, consumer products aren’t filled with lead and asbestos, incentives conductive to high economic growth are preserved and gays have equal rights.

It’s pretty much the best thing ever.

2

Isn’t neoliberalism roughly the same as classical liberalism?

3

Where is this “neo-liberalism”? I don’t see any.

4

Because saying it makes it so!

Also, when did the 1964 CRA become the definining characteristic of libertarianism? When did libertarians unanimously oppose it? And what relevance does the Civil Rights Act even have? (I still don’t understand the whole Rand Paul controversy - do people think the CRA is actually going to be overturned, or that private businesses would suddenly start discriminating if the federal government didn’t keep them on a tight leash?)

5

What about monetary policy?

6

Neolibs aren’t nearly as principled or radical enough compared to classical liberals.

7

It’s a strawman for the freemarket.

It’s Thatcher, Reagan, John Howard etc.

It’s where “free market” economists do their best to make the state more efficient. Gee, thanks guys!

8

“What about monetary policy?”

Fiat money with a rule based policy, probably inflation level targeting (with allowance for catchup inflation ala Woodford) or NGDP targeting. Mechanism would preferably be manipulation of the monetary base, but since it’s pretty unlikely that central banks can be divorced from their love of short term interest rate manipulation I don’t really see a huge problem with continued use of them so long as attention is paid to monetary aggregates and the central bankers in question have backup plans detailing the unconventional sorts of policies they will engage in when a depression arrives and they hit the zero rate bound.

9

Neoliberalism is private-enterprise and corporatism, while libertarianism is free-enterprise and true capitalism.

Things like letting banks gamble with deposits without the owner’s consent, managed trade (NAFTA), and supply-side economics is neoliberalist.

10

“do people think … that private businesses would suddenly start discriminating if the federal government didn’t keep them on a tight leash?”

yes.

the leash would never have been put on if they weren’t so ready to discriminate. do you honestly believe business don’t still discriminate? maybe i’m misunderstanding your point but it is a very real fact.

11

What do I think of a mixed economy? It sucks. Take your hands off my property and get off my lawn.

People aren’t dying in the streets because there is too much freedom. Such an absurd proposition can only come from people who intend to be authoritarian *****s.

12

First, the reasoning here seems to be that the federal government (and in this particular case, the federal government under the eye of Great Society architect LBJ) would only prohibit something that is a real problem. Are you sure you want to suggest this? Do you believe that the state must have prohibited marijuana use because it really was a dangerous drug, or that the state licenses a small number MDs because the populace really was suffering from having too many practicing doctors?

Second, no one I know denies that there was rampant discrimination against blacks, but these were primarily due to Jim Crow Laws (they weren’t Jim Crow Business Codes). Many businesses wanted to treat customers equally no matter the color of their skin, but were prohibited from doing so.

Third, I am asking about today. Do you think that, in 2010, we would suddenly see bus operators force those of a certain ethnicity to sit in the back, or whites-only water fountains/restaurants/hotels would re-emerge? Given modern sensibilities and the low cost of spreading information, do you really think any business owner could so flagrantly refuse service based upon race?

As for whether people discriminate today, I dunno. I wouldn’t be surprised if some out there do make business decisions based primarily on the race or gender of the other person. But I do not see why a man must be prohibited from considering race when making a voluntary trade (assuming it is possible for a person to completely ignore race), nor do I see how the state could possibly enforce such a prohibition effectively. Besides, the market process tends to punish those who make business decisions based upon anything but efficiency.

13

This also sounds like so called ‘Neo-libertarianism’ which isn’t libertarian at all e.g. is pro-war etc.

14

What do I think of a mixed economy? It sucks. Take your hands off my property and get off my lawn. - Nielso

You know, sometimes the simplest arguments seem to be the most eloquent.

15

The chemicals used for your lawn are poisoning the groundwaters.

16

So sue him? I’d say there’s liability there. Just because private property exists doesn’t exempt him from liability. In fact, it increases it – suppose he was just leased the land?

17

Why not just prevent the pollution in the first place?

18

How would you do so without empowering The State to the levels that go beyond even today’s ridiculousness?