Talk:Economic liberalism/Archive 1

Free Market Ideal
The article states that Economic Liberalism is founded on a Free Market ideal. Although this to my knowledge is true, it makes little sense to draw conclusions as to which U.S. party is more in accord with the ideal. This is so for two reasons. First, it does not seem appropriate to mention facts on the English version of Wikipedia that only pertains to US politics. If US parties are mentioned, I belive that (e.g.) Australian-, Brittish-, Canadian- parties ought to be mentioned as well. Secondly, where U.S. parties stand on economic issues may simply depend on their conception of the Free Market ideal. For example, most free market theorists (I dare to say) believe that a free market economy operates at an optimal when there is competition. As a consequence, most theorists would say that monopoly (even oligapoly) arrests the economy. Theorists differ however on the extent they will go to protect the free market. Some claim that all monopoly is bad for the economy whereas others say that only "coercive monopoly" is bad. My point is, an advocate of tougher regulations on corporations may do so precisely in order to optimize the free market. Likewise, free market is based on the idea (I dare to say) that all actors (e.g. corporation) partaking in the market must internalize their (e.g. production-) costs, and not roll them over on others (e.g. consumers). Some theorists accept the use of externalities by corporations as a means to lower production costs, whereas other theorists believe that we ought to eliminate externalities. According to this later view, in order to stay true to the Free Market ideal, externalities must be eliminated, and tougher regulations and taxes on corporations are hence appropriate. PJ 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename: Economic liberalism
This page should be moved to economic liberalism, in line with classical liberalism, social liberalism etc. Any objections? William Quill 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Merging Economic liberalism with capitalism
I don't think these articles should be merged, because based on my understanding of the term, economic liberalism refers to a political and economic ideology that promotes capitalism. Capitalism instead refers to an economic system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.220.30 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
"In the mid-19th century, Abraham Lincoln followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control such as the provision and regulation of railroads."

This comment may be historically true, but the inference is completely wrong. Lincoln was a Mercantilist, which couldn't be more the opposite from a classical liberal, or economic liberalism. This article references both concepts... understand that a modern American liberal has nothing to do with classical liberalism, that term was hijacked. Increasing government control and regulation is an example of economic nationalism, which is in opposition to the subject of the article. Jadon (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

proposed mergers with Neoliberalism or Classical economics
There are currently 2 proposed mergers: To avoid duplicating arguments, discussion and voting on both mergers should be held here. I have moved material from Talk:Classical liberalism to here to prevent two parallel debates leading to confusion or duplication. Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism
 * merge Neoliberalism into Liberal theory of economics

The aricles Liberal theory of economics and Neoliberalism deal with the same school of thought, mainly from economic and political perspectives respectively. "Neoliberalism" is a POV label applied almost entirely by its critics and hence inappropriate as the name of the article. Joestynes 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge Neoliberalism into Liberal theory of economics as per nomination Joestynes 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm? Liberal theory of economics, albiet similar, is different than neoliberalism.  Taken as two words, "neo" means new, and "liberalism" refers to the liberal theory of economics.  While neoliberalism does have basic origins in liberalism, there are some fundemental differences of the new version. Including a top-down structure (such as the World Bank), and the encouragment of multinational oligarchical (and in some cases, monopolistic) capitalist enterprises.


 * If you take offense to this please don't answer it: May I ask where/how you learned about economic policy? As far as i know neoliberalism has no other term it can be defined under. --sansvoix 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That said, I belive the current neoliberalism article could use some proffesional work. I sympathise to anyone who reads it and wonders why the page exists. --sansvoix 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I presume that's a vote for Don't merge, sansvoix? "Old" liberalism is at Classical liberalism.  The article contains the line Some portray neoliberalism as the imposition of "free markets from the top-down,", which I presume includes you, but appaarently not everybody. It also states it has been promoted for the benefit of multinational corporations through the largest international financial institutions of the world-economy which is pretty POV.  The Economist would appear a prime apologist for neoliberalism but only uses the word ironically or in scare quotes.  If there is no NPOV name it is a POV concept.  The article reads like constructing a straw man by cherry-picking aspects of rightwing governments' and NGOs' policies and inferring a coherent theory from them.  While opposition to liberal economics is an important topic deserving its own article, that should be distinct from defining what is being opposed.  It seems significant that Neoliberalism is not part of the Template:Liberalism sidebar series.  I think trying to distinguish neoliberalism from classical liberalism at the end of the article is a bit of a cop-out: how many people would actually say "I'm opposed to neoliberalism, but I support free trade, low taxes and tarriffs, and small government."? Joestynes 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't merge. "Neoliberalism" has been given a meaning which includes also other elements than the pure liberal theory of economics. If the articles would be merged, that would mean, that liberal theory of economics would be also be given meanings that don't belong to it. Maybe that's the motive of the person who suggested it in the first place, I don't know, but in anyway things are what they are, and thoughts which don't have anything to do with economical theory shouldn't be messed up with an article about economical theory.--213.243.157.117 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe, the issues you have with the neoliberalism article are compleatly justified, editors rather than look up the evidence backing the claims (which can be hard to do regarding articles on theory) instead they seem to have used words such as "most believe"... It comes across as very unproffesional. But I am still confused about your plan for merge, as neoliberalism is a distinct academic term, as is the liberal theory. Here is an excerpt I found, It shows a difference between the two articles you wish to merge:--sansvoix 08:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The idea that everyone should be an entrepreneur is distinctly neoliberal. Early liberals never expected the majority of the population to own property, let alone run a business. (The participation of the poor in the market was limited to accepting any work they were offered). The practices on the flexibilised labour market would seem strange to the early liberals. For instance, individuals set up a one-person employment agency with one person on the books, themselves - partly for tax reasons, but also to meet the ideal of the entrepreneur. Policy to increase the number of entrepreneurs is typically neoliberal, although ironically it must be implemented by the State. A classic market-liberal would not say that a free market is less of a free market, because only 10% of the population are entrepreneurs. For neoliberals it is not sufficient that there is a market: there must be nothing which is not market.
 * This article is supposed to explain the ideas which are common for the liberals of all the times, and perhaps explain the differences between different liberal schools of thought. If the neoliberalism differs from early liberalism, the articles on neoliberalism and Liberal theory of economics obviously can't be merged. Anyway, I think that genuine liberal thought isn't consententialist, it doesn't take a stance on what should be the outcome, as long as it is reached in a voluntarily.--213.243.157.117 13:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sansvoix is correct, there are important differences between neoliberals and liberals- the later is often called classical liberalism to distinguish it in economics. It would make sense to merge this artical with the classical liberalism artical. Themissinglint 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added a request to merge this with classical liberalism, as suggested.--sansvoix 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Discussion of that merge moved here Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge - Neo-liberalism pertains to foreign policy, i.e. international free trade. Liberal Theory of Economics is more general. Hogeye 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. But almost all above arguments are completely justified, including Joe's: something should be done with "neoliberalism" which is a straw man. In that article, it should be emphasized that the concept is a straw man. That article should be completely rewritten. IMF etc. are social democratic Keynesian organizations founded for global governance, as opposed to global freedom. True, having hired many economists, their views on the economy have become somewhat rational but inconsistent and sometimes conservative, not liberal, often political, not scientific. (This should not be mixed with American liberalism which is only partially liberal and even less "neoliberal".) 80.186.243.217 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge Neoliberalism in this article. but 'merge this article in Classical liberalism. Electionworld 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism The basis for this merge is the fact that economic liberalism is simply the economic half of Classical Liberalism. Until around the 20th century the political and economic aspects of Classical Liberalism were not considered distinct, so they probabaly should be on the same page, especially considering Classical Liberalism is not an exceptionaly long article. --sansvoix 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have taken the liberty of adding a vote to this comment moved from the other talk page. Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think classical liberalism has more in common with Classical economics than with liberal economics.  Of course since Marx was by some measures a classical economist, merging that is a no-no.  Perhaps liberal economics could be merged with Neoclassical economics. Joestynes 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dont merge the current neoliberal page is a mess of "pluralistic" understandings of a signle definition. -gibby


 * The intention would be not simply to cut and paste the content but to reassign portions of the mess at "Neoliberalism" to various appropriate pages, and then redirect "Neoliberalism" to "Liberal theory or economics". All those arguing against a merge do seem to agree that parts of the current article do not belong specifically to "neoliberalism", and that "neoliberalism" is a more specific concept. I don't know if anyone will agree on which bits to expunge or transfer. Joestynes 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. Both Neoliberalism and Classical Liberalism are political concepts, not economic, so combining them with an economic theory makes no sense. True, many Neoliberal policies base themselves on certain economic theories, but the two developments are separate. Neoliberalism and Classical Liberalism could perhaps be combined, since some of those called Neoliberal call themselves Classical Liberal, but, in reality, their ideas have moved some distance from the original 19th century Liberal thinkers covered in the entry. BritishLib (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lacking buying, owning, infiltrating, manipulating so called 'free press' and 'democracy'
Capitalism is basically good without monopoly, oligopoly positions, price deals, etc.

But this Wikipedia article and the general article about "Capitalism" lacks a very important part:

That about how actually 'free press' and 'democracy' are owned, bought, manipulated, infiltrated, etc. by big money, interests, 'high' families, etc. Instead of real democracy (vote for vote, no manipulated leaders) backed up by real free press, to control Capitalism.


 * So are you saying this doesn't happen in non-capitalist countries? I believe you are badly mistaken. --71.223.247.206 00:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is an idea: Compare the press in traditionally socialist and traditionally capitalist countries. For instance the U.S. versus the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s or better yet North Korea versus South Korea in present times. I think the facts speak for themselves. BTW what exactly are "price deals"? If you mean price fixing you would do well to take note they don't usually last very long or work very well in freer markets because either firm has incentive to not keep the agreement with other firms. Also oligopolies are not always bad for consumers. Because of their size they often have larger economies of scale and can produce goods at lower cost than could firms in a perfect competition. For instance when Standard Oil had near total market share oil had reached its all time lowest price in the U.S. --Jayson Virissimo 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the United States and South Korea are "constitutionally capitalist". That's new to me. 184.96.207.156 (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the USSR and Korea were/are not socialist (despite calling themselves such). They were/are state monopoly capitalists. For a socialist country, try Sweden, which is well up at top of the index of press freedom and open government. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

USSR was socialist by definition. Sweden is not socialist. Sweden has a capital-based economy with economic rights and competition. In fact, Sweden largest economy sector is multi-national corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What is economic liberalism?
An editor has inserted the following: " Confusingly, in popular and some academic English-language usage in North America and the British Isles since at least the early twentieth century "economic liberalism" has also referred to progressive economic ideas and policies opposed to laissez-faire capitalism." (Reference: L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (1911), pp. 88-109)  He did in fact mention "the Liberal view of the State in the sphere of economics" and calls this "economic Liberalism". But that is a primary source and it is original research to use it as a basis for the statement claimed. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has now added an additional source, Views on capitalism. Unfortunately the term "economic liberalism" does not appear anywhere in that book. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism is liberalism for all. Equal Laws, Free markets, etc. Liberalism is liberalism of the "disadvantaged". Social Justice, Welfare Statism, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition in lead?
Am looking to clarify and find sources to add to "economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations". Surely, as is, the page is saying a public company, whose decisions are ultimately made collectively by its shareholders, would not be an institution economic liberalism would support?

This statement would be greatly improved if it said, "economic decisions are made by private parties and not by government". RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Why?
Why does fiscal liberalism redirect here? That makes no sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you know the difference, you have just volunteered to write a separate article for it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Should change to "Economic Conservatism".
All the items discussed in the article are referred to in America and England alike as "conservative" standpoints, Liberalism stresses collectivism and more government interference, Conservatism stresses individual liberty and economic freedom, so this name makes little sense as per WP:COMMONNAME this article is about Conservatism. --42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that the current US Republican administration is clearly mercantilist, your argument fails. But more precisely, this article is about a model in Economics, not about political movements that may adopt it in whole or in part. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea that the means of production should be privatized with minimal regulation is Liberal by definition. US Conservatives are economically Liberal, that does not mean the economics they support is no longer Liberal. You are mistaken in that you take what economic principles are commonly associated with Conservatives and assumed "Conservative" was the actual name of the principles themselves when that isn't the case. As far as John Maynard Friedman's comment, Mercantilism as an encompassing economic principle doesn't exist anymore so saying it's the economic position of any current Administration or Government makes no sense. 76.184.196.142 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I also find the term of this article confusing. Liberalism (and likely economic liberalism) don't mean now what they once meant. Liberalism including the linked article (classical liberalism) once meant liberty; modern liberalism seems often to want to regulate liberties more, whereas conservatism these days (and I assume always) means more advocating of liberties with less restrictions. I'm really curious more than anything since the term (liberalism) used to mean one thing and doesn't anymore; in regards to the article in question, "economic liberalism"--should it be called "classical economic liberalism"? Economics in a liberal sense I would think would mean more regulated. Don't pound on me please, this is a sincere question. Thanks! 63.248.183.82 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC) I must admit I didn't read the OP as thoroughly as I thought; I like that idea too of "economic conservatism"--either my question of "classical economic liberalism or the OP's proposal are appealing to me; which is why I have asked here what people think. 63.248.183.82 (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might prefer "economic libertarianism"? Seriously, the current title is the one recognised in a mass of economic writing. Your proposal would need many supporting citations to justify a change. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not a US one (try Conservapedia). English is the world's most common second language: one of our key principles is to maintain a worldwide perspective and en.wikipedia has to be careful not to pander to passing political fashions in any one country. But if you really want to pursue this, you need to sign up for an account and then open a formal Requested moves/Controversial. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"liberalism" is a euphemism for right-wing (outside US)
Intervention in the economy or state planning is liberal. Otherwise it's arguing private business effectively cancels poverty or crime (thus, need would be "liberal"). The article should be deleted, since it's worthless and just defining an outdated word. 2601:588:8100:E3C0:842B:DEE7:F2C4:C3E1 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming majority of sources disagree with your assessment about intervention in the economy. — Czello 07:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)