Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 2

Right Wing Editors
It seems like some naughty right wing editors are tyring to make this article look dubious. Every single sentence has either "clarification needed" or "citation needed". In some of these sentences are explanatory yet "clarification needed" is tagged to them. Some of them have good citations yet have "citation needed" tagged ot them. It seems like an effort by the right wing forces of society to discredit this theory because it scares them. There is some good stuff in this article and it is being ruined.

This article is over tagged because some right wing nut jobs can't accept that the US has created a monster. I think there should be a large section here about how theis theory inform us about the current US financial crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.35 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NeoLiberalism and Tatcher
The Australian PM arguing against repealing Neoliberalism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.20.69.237 (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the formatting and removed the 'cleanup' tag. Does anybody know what the 'not verified tag' was referring to and whether or not it has been resolved?Calmandcollected 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening Summary Incorrect
Hey everyone, I was just reading this article and noticed that in the opening section it says "Neoliberalism advocates policies such as managed trade and government programs to regulate the economy." This is obviously completely wrong, even from looking quickly at the rest of the article. Someone should change it. 99.255.5.248 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete
The policies promoted by this ideology are obviously rightwing, and liberalism is associated with the left wing nowadays, therefore I propose that the using neoliberalism to describe a right wing ideology is non-sensical and that the term neoliberal be deemed obsolete.


 * response: I urge you not to edit this page in any way because your comment (the above) exhibits an extreme ignorance of the topic. First of all, it is only in American contemporary politics that the term "liberal" has been coopted by the "left-wing". In other countries, "Liberal" parties are consistent with the original, global, and academic meaning of the term. Second of all, even while Americans consider "liberal" to mean "democrat", classrooms (of history, political science, economics, etc) will often use liberal in its original and global meaning. For example, a "neoliberal prescription for economic development" would be described in a political science class as a strategy involving reducing barriers to trade and FDI, decreasing government taxing and spending, sound monetary policy, etc. Also, "liberalism" is not "right-wing" at the very least because a component of liberalism is social liberalism, in support of the equality and freedom of man to do things that don't have substantive real negative effects on others (so support for gay marriage, abortion, legalization of drugs, etc).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.146.210 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

???
As neo-liberalism is the main ideology for the modern right-wing, in nearly all the countries(and stop with your NPOV,we're not here to write nothing, cause every letter has a risk to hurt someone somewhere), im very surprised to see it shown as a "minor" "intellectual" theory?! It sounds more (not only to me, dear NPOV's, read some books from nobel prizes of economy and serious journalists),like the dominant ideology of the 21th century.... It has more influence, through USA (and allies)interventionism, through IMF, through World bank and WTO, more influence than communism, socialism or any ideology you ever thought of. In examplen, the delocalizations, and everyone knows what im talkin about, are a direct consequency of this way of thinking. Unemployement, the same. It says "state must be powerless",so the power is given to those who have the money, and the countries of the north are just unable to protect their own citizens. We,"great industrialized countries", can kill everyone in earth with H bombs, but are unable to stop delocalizations? So there's something more powerful than states? What? Its more powerful than peoples? But theorically we vote to choose who will control us? no? So i ask : why there's a great "hub-page" on wiki for communism, anarchism, socialism and etc.... but nothing for neo-liberalism? Because no-one say "i am one,i am a neo-liberalist!";"money is the power!","state is nothing!"? But its the same problem for national-socialists "kill the jews!", far-right people "bring 'em to work until'' they reach 90 years" and racists "i don't like niggas". Have you ever seen people telling this? But they're real,and there's a bit more documentation about them here..... Neo-liberalism is real too, and while they make the world they want, we're here discussing about the names "neo-cons","neo-right","neo-liberalism","tchatcherism","bush-ism"...... Its a bunch all those streams, but, eventually, we don't care about the names, lets find a "convention name" for the new "washington consensus" right-wing (cause its what we're talkin about, they all follow this text)and let's go! Write long articles with analysis, criticism and meta-link to different aspect of the neo-liberalism theory Remember we're here to inform about the world, and this article is maybe one of the most important to understand it.

PS:Sorry for the faults, im a damn french (yeah,with cheese), and for my political opinions, i think that you guessed :D This has to be done, whether you like this ideology or not.

EDIT: Woooo i was so dramatic here, but it seems the article has grown since this and it looks a lot better. There's good criticism, lot of, and the final goals are clearly defined, that's great! The sterile debates over "how do we call it" and "there's some sub-fraction of the ideology with different sub-goals" are over and i think wikipedia has gained a lot because of this. 86.219.219.241 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a section for rants. My turn.


 * The word "neoliberal" doesn't appear to be widely used outside of Marxism and anti-globalisationism. In it's anti-globalisationist context "neoliberalism" appears to have ended up :with the meaning: conventional economic theory.  A little bit like how homeopaths use the word "allopathy" in a pejorative context vis a vis conventional medicine.


 * However, my point really is around the usage of the word. Shouldn't it be mentioned more specifically that the term "neoliberalism" is neither widely used nor widely understood?  :Isn't it more than just a little like "allopathy"?  And shouldn't this be specifically mentioned?  After all there's no point beating up a term which has no meaning in the real world.

192.30.92.238 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of points to note. First, neoliberalism does not refer to conventional economic theory, but rather policies.  This point seems to miss many readers of this article, even though it is written at its outset.  Aside from free trade, you'd be hard pressed to find "conventional" economic literatures that push neoliberal policies.  You might say that mainstream econ was taken with laissez-faire policy fifteen or twenty-five years ago, but this is hardly the case today.  So, discussions of neoliberalism do not engage economists, but rather people (perhaps like you) who think that the kinds of policies discussed in this article remain mainstream consensus views.  They are not.  In fact, most economists are apparently | slightly left-leaning their policy views.


 * Second, a search on the Web of Science reveals over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles mentioning neoliberalism. Many of these are in reputable poly sci, sociology, public admin and geography journals.  Yes, some are in questionable journals, but you can say the same about laissez-faire policy views, which are generally pushed by lobbies and think tanks rather than peer-reviewed academic journals (again, besides free trade).  Within the econ literature, they tend to split hairs and look at specific manifestations of these changes, but, within development econ, for example, it will be described generically as "reform" in the context of the late 80s or early 90s, or the "Washington Consensus".


 * BTW, "allopathy" is mentioned 32 times in the Web of Science, despite the fact could be potentially engaged by large, recent NIH projects. Allow me to emphasize the poverty of your comparison: 1,010 for neoliberalism vs. 32 for allopathy.  A more appropriate comparison with alternative medicine would be "St. John's Wort".  By the way, neoliberalism is mentioned as much as "downsizing".  If you want to make this case, you're going to have to do way better. -jncohen (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to question the "poverty" of my comparison, shouldn't we also look into the point that you raised about all references to neoliberalism in peer-reviewed journals, and that is this: economics itself is conspicuous by its absence.


 * Surely this renders your comparison moot? If we're going to accept the term as a valid term within economic theory (or merely "policies" which you assert) then shouldn't there be widespread acceptance within economics itself?


 * Your "allopathy" reference ("BTW, "allopathy" is mentioned 32 times in the Web of Science") is well intended, but comes across as a bit naive. If you didn't know that homeopaths (who use the term) don't acknowledge that the scientific method has any use, then I retract that comment.  But I suspect that you knew all along. It doesn't exactly provide an appropriate comparison. 124.168.125.204 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, please sign your Wikipedia entries. It's annoying to argue with someone who doesn't identify themself.


 * The term is not "absent" from economists' discussions. I did not say that economists don't use the term "neoliberalism". Offhand, I've seen Dani Rodrik use it, and remember pieces by Brad DeLong and John Williamson engaging the concept.  I think that the latter was arguing against those who use the term, but your main point is that it is absent from these discussions, isn't it?


 * I said that economists tend to "split hairs" -- they look at the specific areas of policy concern that lie within their areas of specialization (e.g., exchange rate policies, the effects of specific types of policy changes (e.g., deregulation, privatization) on some specific economic outcome (like productivity or growth)). Does it matter that they many of them have used different terms, like "reform" or "Washington Consensus", for the same phenomenon?  Why should it?  We're all talking about the same phenomenon.


 * On your point, "If you didn't know that homeopaths (who use the term) don't acknowledge that the scientific method has any use..." Homeopaths do have peer-reviewed journals: it took me two minutes to find Homeopathy, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and Complementary Therapies in Medicine.  This is without investing much effort at all.  Unless you define a "homeopath" as someone who does not consult a peer-reviewed lit, then it appears that at least some of them are engaging the literature.  Also, why not Google the terms {homeopathy "scientific breakthrough"} to see if homeopaths are as science-averse as you say?  -jncohen (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not signing off on my suggestions, Jncohen. I'm not a registered editor due to my inability to construct a coherent sentence.


 * I suppose that I "split hairs" more than most on these issues, however, there are accepted terms in economics for what you're referring to, and, just like in science, economists really, really object to people from other disciplines coming in and telling them what they're thinking. Sadly, unlike science, economics doesn't have an Alan Sokal to put humanities undergraduates in their place.


 * That said, I have no objection to "umbrella terms", as you describe them, however, occupying a position on, for example, privatisation does not mean that one will automatically occupy a pre-determined position on trade protectionism. Also, my point remains - the term neoliberalism has no obvious or accepted meaning within economics.  Your point about where "neoliberalism" is mentioned, economists are often strongly resisting the term kinda says it all.


 * Incidentally, with regards to homeopathy (and I promise that I won't mention it again), I could mention the following:


 * that out of the journals you have mentioned, the term "peer-reviewed" appears to have been applied charitably, and their peer-review process would be frowned on at, say, the New England Journal of Medicine


 * a Google search on "homeopathy scientific method" appears to confirm serious science-aversion, combined with general antipathy from scientists;


 * a Google search on "do homeopaths consult peer-reviewed literature" appears to confirm the exact same thing; and


 * a Google search on "prominent homeopaths scientific method" reveals some quotes that appear to place evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy outside the scientific method


 * ...but we'll be at it all day.


 * I propose that we leave this in the hands of an independent umpire - James Randi. The James Randi Education Foundation has offered a USD $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate any type of efficacy of homeopathy for over 20 years under scientific examination.  I'll accept that homeopathy embraces the scientific method if a homeopath has ever won the prize.


 * Cheers, Qwoj.192.30.92.238 (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The line of homeopathy is a red herring. I would give you this piece of advice -- be careful of any scientist, or body of scientists, who claim to have a monopoly of knowledge over a particular subject matter.  Professional economists do not claim such a monopoly, and the good ones work across disciplines.  It is usually the B-level economists who are concerned with territory, because their arguments from authority are all that they have.  If people stop believing that their professional designation is enough for them to convey "truths" about economic life, they'll have nothing left.  Also, be very wary of sweeping statements about what "economists say" -- they are actually a rather heterogeneous group.


 * Discussions about neoliberalism are not about economists, they are about politicians and ideologues. It is so hard to keep repeating this over and over and over again, but it just never sinks in.  Here is a challenge to you or anyone who continues about this "economists say this or that" line of argumentation:  I challenge you to find a serious, academic (not think tank) literature from the last ten years that says countries should embrace government cutbacks, deregulation, privatization, capital liberalization, welfare cutbacks or any other policy discussed in this article, besides free trade.  In other words, try to find a serious, ongoing dialog that takes place among economists from serious research universities about laissez-faire as unambiguously beneficial.  If you go beyond an undergraduate economics text, you will not find it.  Economists just don't approach their subject matter spouting off absolutes like that.  However, you hear right-wing politicians say that "markets are proven to work" and that "governments are wasteful and inefficient".  When you have trouble finding that statement made unambiguously by a community of serious academic economists, ask yourself where these ideas come from.  Discussions about neoliberalism are about these often-repeated, ultimately non-scientific, statements about economic policy, and how, over the 1980s and 1990s, people believed that this was economic truth.-jncohen (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm going to get this back on track. Homeopathy is not so much a red herring - it's your straw man. "Allopathy" was the analogy I was making. And it's a good one.

The remainder of your first paragraph was way condescending, and included a particularly nasty Galileo gambit, a no true Scotsman's fallacy, a bit of poisoning the well and an argument from authority at the same time, finishing with a red herring that told me quite a bit about you.

I have personally copped two lectures in two weeks from two separate friends of mine who loosely align themselves with groups that love to use the term neoliberalism. One (who is an arts student and an anarchist) suggested that I had been "sucked in by neoliberalism" for suggesting that prices were fixed by the interaction between supply and demand.

Another, a Marxist and engineering student, suggested to me that limiting inflation by lifting interest rates through a central bank is supposedly classic neoliberalism.

Sorry, these are not economic "policies". These are fundamental economic tenets, almost. Up there with "a want is not a need".

Prior to this, I had never heard the term before, and I'm a final year accounting student. I asked around and the only person I could find who had heard the term was someone who had studied some first-year political science.

By the way, your last paragraph was almost entirely POV silliness and rampant straw. If neoliberalism is not aimed at economics per se, then for heaven's sake, people should stop bringing economics into it. Trade, government spending, supply and demand, public accounting, monetary policy - these are ECONOMIC concepts. They might have a political tint, but then again, my first year macroeconomics lecturer once described politics as "applied economics" in his opinion, anyway. Qwoj.124.168.125.204 (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, calm down. Second, I have no idea what you are arguing about at this point.   Do you have any practical issue to take up with regard to this article?  And, if you do have any issue, make sure it is somehow substantiated.  I am neither interested in your dorm room discussions nor your field trip through your logical fallacies textbook. -jncohen (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget it. I love Wikipedia, but you are going to have to stop talking down to people.  I made my point perfectly clear initially, and here's my reference, if it matters: Kingsnorth, Paul. 2004. One No, Many Yeses: A Journey to the Heart of the Global Resistance Movement. Free Press. ISBN 0-7432-2027-7.  Dorm room discussion or not, you started the logical fallacy fight.  Deal with it. 192.30.92.238 (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to be condescending. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, I would recommend that you do one of two things: Either
 * Read something about this topic. It is clear that you have read nothing, especially since your one citation does not seem to have much to do with your main point, or even be of a serious scholastic caliber.
 * If you want to air your views without having read much on a topic, at least have the bravery to do it without anonymity. Attach these views to a registered account.  You can even use a pseudonym if you aren't brave enough to put your real name to your viewpoint.
 * There is something particularly irritating about someone who BOTH disparages a line of discussion of which they clearly know little AND does so anonymously. My irritation with people like you does not merit you being treated with disrespect.  If you feel wronged by anything I said, please accept my apologies.  If you want to be taken seriously, however, invest at least some effort into understanding this topic, or at least stand by your unresearched position with pride. -jncohen 21:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...nerds to the max. I rarely go on wikipedia and this is the first discussion section I've seen and I've got to say, I'm sadly impressed. I'm no where near as smart or well informed on probably any branch of intellectualism you can bring up (thankfully). Have you made it your life's mission to debate over who knows more about high school research paper subjects? Bash the crap out of me till your heart's are content, that doesn't make you guys any less of nerds. Thanks for the fun read though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.183.33 (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Change the Organization
This article seems to describe "free market" completely, not some new term "neo-liberalism". In particular, the description specifies very OLD ideas which are not specifically liberal ideas, and not particularly aligned with 'liberal' people or groups. There doesn't seem to be any alternate equivalent to "neo-conservativism" in American political talk. Even if there was some sort of 'neo-liberal' phrase in use, it surely would not mean 'free market' to us, as those ideas are seen as conservative. If this phrase actually has some definite meaning in Germany or europe, maybe a redirection to their foriegn language page is appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm (talk • contribs) 11:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It seems to me that the problem with the article as you note is not a problem with the article necessarily, but simply a technical problem where neoliberalism can be interpreted from different perspectives and remains a fundamentally new worldview that even scholarly literature has yet to fully grasp and define effectivley. For example, whether you are talking about Bill Clinton or Margaret Thatcher, they might both be characterized as neoliberal in economic terms, but the end to their means are very different politically.  For this reason, I do not believe it should be deleted, but simply clarified and reworked if possible. --Kenneth M Burke 19:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct about clarity. We need to say that "neoliberalism" is an economic concept that contrasts with a "command economy", and should not be mistaken as an antonym for the politcal concept of "neoconservative" right? --Ace Frahm 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Command economy" is too broad and imprecise a designation for the antonym of "neoliberalism". Start with historical specifics: neoliberalism historically is a rejection of Keynesianism. As an historical decline in class compromise on the part of capital during an historical period of high capital mobility--implicating decreased state autonomy--its political-economic model has spread to replace other capitalist economy mixes. It is a rejection of socialism, and it is an historically-specific reassertion of laissez faire liberalism. To sum, neoliberalism is not just an economic program. It is a political project as well: Where Margaret Thatcher assures/threatens us, "there is no alternative".

To the extent that that political-economic relationship violates the assumptions of certain disciplinary perspectives only shows that "neoliberal" is not a concept that's home territory lies in those communities, and so those external communities should not be looked to to provide the definition of "neoliberal", but rather the arguments against.

This Wiki page should definitely NOT be deleted, as "neoliberal" has a definite meaning--including discussions of historical variants--among critical communities in the U.S. as well as in Europe, whether or not this is true among your particular friends, or in your particular discipline, and even if it is a politically-contested concept.

I think that Ace's comment also gestures to the fact that "neoliberal" is not a term anyone would give themselves; since neoliberalism can be considered a successful hegemonic project, its proponents want to normalize it. "Neoliberal" is rather a critical concept. Therefore, I propose that the views of the critics of neoliberalism be taken out of the "Opponents" ghetto section at the end of the entry and incorporated in the main body of the page. That Opponents section would more properly befit the views of people who are proponents of neoliberalism or who deny it exists.

neoliberalism is a label
None of the authors cited as inspirers or proponents of "neoliberalism", not even their followers have ever used the word. It is a label used by marxists, mainly in Spain and Argentina, to denigrate liberal policies by calling them something else. In the US this label is not used at all, since "liberalism" there has changed it's 19th century meaning to one approaching socialism or progressivisim.--Flix2000 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have never seen anyone describe himself as a neoliberal. However, the term is used by many more people than just Marxists, Spaniards, and Argentines, and it is used widely in the US among the left-wing. To cite one example, Noam Chomsky wrote a decent-selling book about neoliberalism with "neoliberalism" in the title, which I have read, and he is not a Marxist, Spaniard, or Argentine, but an American libertarian socialist. So I am going to rephrase the sentence on this topic in the article. Organ123 03:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Few tyrannical dictators would label themselves as such -- does that mean tyranny and dictatorships don't exist. -jncohen 21:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is not a marxist? That is a surprise. Maybe you should read something by him. If that is your reason I'm reverting. As to Spain and Argentina, maybe I should have said "specially" instead of "mainly".--Flix2000 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just read his wikipedia entry: "he describes himself as a libertarian socialist" I think we can agree that socialism and marxism are slightly related...


 * Please let's have a calm discussion. I have read nine books by Chomsky as well as dozens of articles and videos. I've actually read Chomsky explaining in detail why he is not a Marxist. Libertarian socialism is much more similar to anarchism than it is to Marxism. But Chomsky is not the only one. There's also Jeff Faux, a prominent left-wing US economist with no associations with Marx, whose new book The Global Class War uses the term neoliberalism. The US anti-globalization movement, which first became well-known at the 1999 Seattle protests, is rooted in anarchism, but uses the term neoliberal. The World Social Forum this year, which gathered tens of thousands of anti-capitalists of all flavors in Kenya, uses the word "neo-liberal" on its main "about" web page. (http://wsf2007.org/info/about). I'm trying to get across that the term is used widely among the left. So instead of Marxist, I used "left-wing," which is more general. Organ123 16:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree on the marxist take (I've read chomsky too and have no doubts that he IS marxist to the core in his history and in his world view, just 'coz he does not subscribe revolutionary communism, it does not mean he does not believe in class struggle) I accept "left wing", if you feel it's more accurate..--Flix2000 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Believing in class struggle does not make one a Marxist. I suggest you look at the articles on here regarding Proudhon, Mutualism, and Libertarian Socialism. Marx wrote a book condemning Proudhon (98.65.208.162 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC))

I have just found a counterexample to the initial argument in this section -- there are at least two prominent individuals (see below) who consider themselves neoliberals, and they (Pollack and Asmus) were published here in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26009-2003Jul21 According to them: "Neoliberals, among whom we number ourselves, believe in political preemption first and military preemption only as a last resort." "Ronald D. Asmus is senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Kenneth M. Pollack is director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. Both served in the Clinton administration." So for accuracy, I am going to have to change the opening paragraph. Organ123 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about "neoliberalism" the diplomatic school. Not the same, there is a completely different wiki on that.--Flix2000 14:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC) see "international relations" it really has nothing at all in common.


 * First, for what it's worth, I am talking about "neoliberalism" the political philosophy. As I see it, the people I mentioned above identify themselves with a political philosophy called neoliberalism, a philosophy which I believe this page is concerned with addressing. They call themselves neoliberals and describe how their philosophy differs from neoconservatism, another political philosophy. This page has a box on the right side about the "politics" series, of which this article is a part. Neoliberalism in international relations does not encompass the broad political definition of neoliberalism the way this page should. My main issue is with the sentence: "It is a label used by marxists, mainly in Spain and Argentina, to denigrate liberal policies by calling them something else." I believe I have demonstrated that "neoliberalism" is not merely a label, not used merely by Marxists, and not used merely to denigrate liberal policies. I would love if somebody else could join in on this discussion. Organ123 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about. I have also read what Ron D. Asmus (of the Center for MIDDLE EAST POLICY at Brookings, who worked for Clinton- NOT a philosophical neoliberal) says. I accepted your corrections about Spain and Argentina, I accepted (disagreeing, but for the sake of compromise) your correction on marxism. I certainly don't accept your implication that the term is used as anything but a label. I really cannot waste any more time correcting your changes. If you want to knowingly distort the truth, feel free, it'll be on your conscience.--Flix2000 09:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I tried to fix what I think is not the truth to something that I think is the truth, in accordance with the "good faith" policy. But to avoid a revert war, I will let other people change the "negative label" description instead. Organ123 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Grouper 12:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I want to say first of all that I am not an expert in politics. However, I find the use of the term neoliberalism very frustrating. It is used regularly in the newspaper The Guardian as a way of instantly discrediting anybody with whom their columnists take issue. The term is based on a flawed analysis and misinterpretation of the views and values of libertarians, conservatives, and even people on the left who might think that market place may have something to offer. It is a very typical strategy used by many on the left to frame the agenda of any discussion in terms which are advantageous to them. The best strategy in a discussion is to insist that this language is taken off the table and that people are allowed to describe their own philosophies in their own terms.


 * In Political Science neoliberalism is understood as an ideology, not just a set of economic policies, because of its explicitly moral claim that markets will yeild the fairest distribution of goods, the expansion of freedom, and the prosperity of all who value it. These rely on widespread but contestable notions of the individual, of value and of freedom. The people who popularized it described themselves as neoliberals (See the German version).


 * However, it obviously gets used in other ways, particularly as a label and as a description just of the economic policies which it demands. Would it be OK to decribe it as a philosophy, and then also discuss the other (derivative) ways in which it is used. David Harvey's (admittedly polemic) 'brief history of neoliberalism' might be a useful starting place.


 * Also, we clearly need to address the fact that it isn't used in the US and that 'liberal' means something else. For the record, I would describe large swathes of Clinton and Bush's policies as neoliberal.


 * As regards being a label, (I'm from the UK and read the newspaper in question) its usage in political debate tends to imply a myopic view of value (ie the market values the time of our footballers more highly than that of our nurses); of human nature (Adam Curtis's recent documentary series 'the trap' would be a good example of this usage); and sometimes a form of allegiance with the owners of financial capital who are held to benefit most from neoliberal inspired economic reforms. It seems useful to highlight this in the article.

--81.154.27.117 12:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)UK Politics Student


 * That sounds fine to me. I think it would be nice to have a nuanced description of the term that accounts for the various ways in which people use it. If you're going to write it up, then I suggest using as many footnotes and quotes as possible to avoid having it reverted. Organ123 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm busy until mid-June but will have a go then if it still hasn't been improved. I've got Harvey's book and God knows how many others on the subject so citations shouldn't be an issue! -UK Politics Student--81.154.27.235 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism IS a label used ONLY in politics. It's a label used by communists, socialists, social-democrats and STATISTS in general in a PEJORATIVE way, to discredit economic liberals and libertarians.

Fact is: "neoliberalism" (without the sarcasm the term implies) is plain simple ECONOMIC LIBERALISM.

Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and many other followers of the Austrian Economics, which advocates SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIBERALISM (in other words, freedom), are LIBERALS.

The problem is: POLITICALLY, people that defend social AND economic liberalization call themselves Libertarian, because of the way that the word "liberal" has lost its meaning in politics. USA is the best example of what i'm talking about, since liberalism in that country is divided between social liberalism with conservative economics (Democrats) and economic liberalism with conservative views on certain social aspects, like gay-marriage, immigration, etc. (Republicans).

In politics, people that call themselves "liberal" usually advocates social liberalism OR economic liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.236.35.26 (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about neoliberalism being economic liberalism, but it is a specific brand of economic liberalism that arose after the 1970s. It is somewhat distinct from the liberalism of the 19th century, for example.  I don't really understand the relevance of everything else you've said here.  When you use caps, are we to infer that you are yelling (e.g., STATISTS!)? -jncohen (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be made clear in the article that this is a label used only from leftists, so keep the article NPOV. no "neoliberal" describes him/herself as such, there are no neoliberal books, or neoliberal movement. In Amazon you will find with this term only books that criticise economic liberalism, you wont find a "neoliberal" writer. -neon 07:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No writer calls himself stupid or uninformed. Does that mean that there is no such thing as a stupid or uninformed writer? -jncohen (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This does not prove that classical liberals are neoliberals, do your search and you will see that I'm right about this "It should be made clear in the article that this is a label used only from leftists, so keep the article NPOV." Just because the opponents of liberalism call them like that it doesnt mean it's their name. If I'm your opponent and I call you stupid does it mean that you are? -neon 15:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.222.218 (talk)

Whoever believes that neoliberal is not a label let a neoliberal change it, he surely will be offended for us not recognizing his existence. Please if you are lefty or conservative don't change it, let's do that experiment for once. It will be more objective if a neoliberal change the article from label to a "political philosophy" (!). If you change it it will be just your biased opinion. (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2008 CET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.215.215 (talk)

The German version of this page rocks.
I took a look at the German version based on the advice of the box at the top of this page, and discovered that it is quite good. You can view a translated version of it here or the original version here. I would like to incorporate elements of the German page into our English page. Organ123 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I'll start doing bits and pieces. InSpace 07:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

These things need to be done under History of Neoliberalism:

(1) Write a paragraph or two on the Marginal Revolution lineage of neoliberalism and the development of the Austrian School (The Marginal Revolution & Carl Menger -->von Mises-->von Hayek).

(2) Quickly discuss the role of the London School of Economics in gestating neoliberalism.

(3) The University of Chicago gave right-wing thinkers academic jobs while they were funded by private capitalist organizations. Look up the history of how von Hayek and others were recruited to the University of Chicago and funded handsomely while Keynesianism was still ascendant (around 1940-1980). Include a paragraph about this, clarifying which part of U.S. capital was funding and recruiting these particular gentlemen to the University of Chicago School and for what purpose--including how this served as a pillar of the the U.S. conservative movement after the oil crisis, why Chicago, what happened to bring the neoliberals out of the periphery of economic orthodoxy and into setting economic orthodoxy worldwide. That will give you a strong historical footing and clarity for this article. I'm forgetting where this discussion is at the moment, but you should be able to find this information in pertinent Political Sociology studies.

(4) Use the German "neoliberalism" page for the info to insert a sentence or two on the German group that called itself "Neoliberalismus" (or whatever). This is to establish the historical basis for the term itself.

(5) Show that historians of neoliberalism point to the political nature of the neoliberal economic orthodoxy. Describe the differences in (and political-economic conditions of) early political neoliberalism (Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterand, Kohl) and the second-generation neoliberalism (Clinton, Blair, Schroeder, the post-apartheid South Africans) as well as the subsequent hardline regress (Bush, Merkel, Sarkozy). I think you will need someone with something of a Marxist/Gramscian perspective to do this.

(4) Related to 3 above, clarify the relationship between neoliberalism and neoconservatism in the U.S.


 * I made it into a todo list at the top of the talk page. --Beao 05:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes
The infoboxes are awkward, does anyone know how to fix it so that it is not obtrusive to the formatting of the page?


 * If you mean the "Liberalism" infobox...I suggest removing it altogether. Despite the name, "neoliberalism" is actually conservative ideology. Redxiv 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, should it be listed in the conservatism template instead, and include ordoliberalism in that template as well? Intangible2.0 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the rest of the article?
I do remember this article having a lot more content then it does now, what happened? Or maybe Im imagining things. - anon
 * This article has been rolled back, apparently unilaterally, by 172 on Jan 30, 2007. There seems to be no clear rationale for it.  What is the prevailing view on reconstructing some of the material cut out? jncohen

The old version was very diverse and informative in the sense that anyone reading it could make up their own minds as to what this controversial term is all about. Now what has happened is that someone from a very narrow political perspective has decided to censor all possible meanings in favor of a very narrow view of it as a term of left-wing abuse. The old page should be restored even though there was much there I disagreed with (see my own contribution A Brief History of Neoliberalism).(User:DHarvey)


 * Going through older versions and looking for good-quality snippets may be worthwhile. I can't go through it right now as I'm completely tied up with my dissertation defense.  I don't think we should do a simple revert.  In my view, the whole page should avoid either side of those old and tired, Cold War-style capitalism vs. its enemies polemic.  If the next version is going to avoid NPOV issues, it might tackle this issue most fruitfully by discussing it as a debate over the practical philosophies that should guide economic policy debate.  BTW, I enjoyed A Brief History of Neoliberalism. jncohen 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempting a reconstruction of the page
jncohen: I have begun to add cited material to this page. I have not had the time to augment the history portion, but, if anyone is interested, the section can include topics such as:

Policies
Something should be said about neoliberalism's prioritization of inflation to high employment, in contrast to the Keynesians. Something on the WTO, FTAA, IMF expansion, etc. could be mentioned here

another thing that could be mentioned is that, neoliberals don't which to increase public spending in welfare, or subsidise welfare rather most of them appear to want to give money to business. and often their point of view is to increase subsidies in form of bailouts etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.184.162 (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

History

 * The rise of Monetarism (someone refers to it obliquely, but a better explanation, and linkage to subsequent anti-Keynesian movements and Reaganomics/Thatcherism, would be a big contribution)
 * Neoconservatism adopts economic neoliberalism: Pinochet, Thatcher, Regan, Mulroney, "Rogernomics".
 * The Brady Plan and Shock Therapy. It should be noted that portraying the diffusion of neoliberal policies to the developing world as something that was a pure imposition of the IMF or US is probably POV -- for example, see a recent Armijo and Faucher article (I don't have the citation handy) about Latin American voters partly supporting neoliberalism in order to contain runaway inflation, which placed great stress on their savings and general economic stability

Other ideas would be appreciated

As regards your third point above, on "Brady Plan and Shock Therapy": This is a matter of accurate phrasing. Remember to avoid overgeneralization. Sometime-voter support is not a reason to censor an informed discussion of the prominent roles of the US, IMF, and World Bank in neoliberal policy diffusion.Blanche Poubelle 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is completely the opposite -- that it would be an overgeneralization to say that neoliberalism was purely an imposition from the US or multilateral agencies. Note that the framing given above, in "Brady Plan", is in fact the one that is not imposing absolutes on the historical account -jncohen 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If anybody wants an interesting academic work on the history of the term neoliberalism and how it has become popular and changed meanings, you can check this article: “From Rallying Cry to Whipping Boy: The Concept of Neoliberalism in the Study of Development” http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:J80EKI01cDkJ:www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/cqrm/APSA2006/Boas_Neoliberalism_Development.pdf+%E2%80%9CFrom+Rallying+Cry+to+Whipping+Boy:+The+Concept+of+Neoliberalism+in+the+Study+of+Development%E2%80%9D&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us (I use this long link because if you search in google, you have to use the "view as html" option to read it, the pdf does not work) I think it would be very helpfull to improve the article.74.73.81.112 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Sebastian G. Guzman

Reclassification of this Page
Are there any views on the disciplinary categorization of this page? I see that it is associated with political liberalism and macroeconomics, but believe that the subject is best classified as political economy. Are there any views on this? jncohen


 * Sounds good to me. Organ123 19:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This page should definitely be reclassified as political economy. Otherwise we run into the problem of mainstream economics afficianados trying to reformulate "neoliberalism" as a mainstream economics discipline concept. That's going to be frustrating for everyone involved.Blanche Poubelle 17:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blanche Poubelle. I have never dealt with the classification and reclassification of pages in this manner.  Does anyone know how to do this, or where information on how such a reclassification could be done? -jncohen 13:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bread Winners????
In this sentence: "Working families have been forced to have more than one bread-winner." the term "bread-winner" strikes me at something carried over from some other language. I'm not a native english speaker myself, but have never found this term before... which I think is enough of an argument to suggest its removal, since it's uncommon to say the least.

In response to your concern, the common colloquial term "breadwinners" has been replaced with "income-earners".Blanche Poubelle 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Class traumatization?
This article mentions middle-class traumatization as if it were fact. I'm not an economist nor a political scientist by trade, but it does seem to suggest class struggle theories that are certainly not universally (or even broadly) agreed upon. There are enough real effects with neoliberal policies such as free trade regulations that can be described in encyclopedic tone that I'm not certain we need to pad this out with something that suggests a nearly Marxist bias. Still, I leave it to someone who knows the topic better to either set me straight or make the appropriate changes. --The Centipede 14:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Marxism is a bias _per se_ -- provided we are talking about Marx-influenced historical economic analysis and not his more political rhetoric. Middle-class traumatization sounds like editorializing, and I would like to see the concept better specified and justified if it is going to be used. -jncohen 17:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
The Criticisms section doesn't seem to conform to NPOV, especially the parts on the Clinton administration. I understand the criticisms section obviously does not have to have a neutral view, but the section claims things like "Neoliberalism under the U.S. Clinton administration--steered by Ayn Rand devotee Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin-- was the temporary and unstable policy inducement of economic growth....." This statement should be qualified with something like "x claims that neoliberalism under the U.S. Clinton..." or "A common criticism of Neoliberalism is...." so it doesn't sound like that first statement should be accepted as fact. I am adding a NPOV tag, if you find that its not fitting for this article feel free to remove it. Dark567 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not NPOV, but I do not think qualifying the statements as you described will fix the problem. The section was almost entirely written by an anonymous user who is apparently also interested in the Swedish Social Democratic Party and Primitive accumulation of capital (where (s)he also added content in many consecutive steps without a single edit summary; not that this meant anything). To me the section seems inappropiate not only in vocabulary ("working class", "bread winners"), but also in postulating things that seem completely out of context (e.g. "workers in the U.S. have strongly exhibited many symptoms of their decreasing welfare" -- maybe a violation of wp policy "no original research"?). The more I think about it, the less I can see how a fitting criticism section can be made out of it, as it does not even seem to criticise the same "neoliberalism" that is described in the rest of the article. Currently, the section could aptly be titled "Criticism from a socialist point of view of what socialists see as neoliberalism" (I might be exaggerating here, but only slightly). I think the best way to deal with this section is removing it entirely and rewriting it.
 * The German article has a (large) section on policies the term neoliberalism is applied to (hardly ever by proponents of the respective policies) and criticism of these, which might be a better model. --a.bit 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the whole section. I was just trying not to wholly delete someone else's work. (I find your discourse on the criteria for contribution validity interesting: non-anonymity, liberalism, and contributing in a large block instead of piecemeal.)

I agree with the first complainant on this issue above. Some things can simply be amended with a segue that shows whose position the statement is. All of it is cited, and I thought that citation would be sufficient. But it is no problem to take the attribution out of the citation and put it in the sentence. I have now done this.

However, from what I see, the second complainant above especially charges that what I am contributing is not an accurate reflection (eg his POV criticism) of the relevant scholarly and activists communities' discourses on neoliberalism. I'm going to take issue with this and question your understanding of the concept and the communities that use the concept “neoliberal”. It must be emphasizted that it is unsupportable to claim that neoliberalism is NOT a critical idea. The concept "neoliberalism" flat out does not come from a liberal perspective, so it should show a critical formulation, simply to be accurate. Certainly, this wiki entry on neoliberalism remains incomplete; but it is highly questionable (and indicative of "POV" or political bias) to assert that discussing formulations by Harvey, Pollin, etc., on class compromise issues, etc. is not germane to the page on neoliberalism. I have tremendous questions about the validity of constructing a wiki on "neoliberalism" as if it were an idea that came out of and is contained by mainstream Anglo-American or German economics or political science. Monetarism, yes. Liberalism, yes. Neoliberalism, absolutely not. That is just inaccurate and misleading.

I directed the content to show that if you are coming from a non-critical perspective, then you think of these political-economic issues in terms of "liberalism" (as another Talk Page contributor pointed out above) and "monetarism", not "neoliberalism", and I included links for those so inclined to follow, which I believe is reasonable. I agree that the position of the premier writers on neoliberalism should not be included in the "Criticisms" section. Therefore, I removed everything I wrote (or included from others' contributions) that explains the formulation and use of the term "neoliberalism" from the "Criticisms" section, and placed it in the main entry, leaving the "Criticisms" section for contributors to voice their or others’ objections to the critical formulations of the people who use the term "neoliberalism".

I have read the German page on neoliberalism. It's okay. What should be carried over from the German page is the mention of the origins of the term "neoliberal" in Germany; you can do that. The reason why I contributed to this page at all is because my students often use Wikipedia and they need some direction as to the flavor and gist of the discussion on neoliberalism in the English-speaking world. Inasmuch as youall seem to go on and on about how great the German page is, it's been months and months and you never seem to get around to adapting it to this site. That's clearly your project; do it. If you have the timeand inclination to get worked up about the mention of class relations in a wiki on neoliberalism (!), then maybe you have the time and inclination to introduce the sections of the German site that you keep recommending. Blanche Poubelle 15:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Build It
Even though one could fairly argue that all of mainstream U.S. neoclassical economics is a justification of neoliberalism, and thus is already covered by Wiki web pages, I have added ncohen's bulletpoint section on "Advocates of Neoliberalism" as well as a sample argument. That's about all I will do in that department. I'd advise all real contributors not to feed the trolls anymore. And trolls: unsubstantiated defenses of neoliberalism will be deleted. You must cite. There's an interesting study that recently came out in the Chronicle of HIgher Education (Feb 22, 2008) that shows that right-wing students don't go on to earn PhDs because they don't like to research. They're more into rhetorics, I guess. I can see that also being a continual problem in Wikipedia. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Overview Clarification Required
I want to see the contributor (or someone) operationalize (clarify) "centralized" and "decentralized", characterizing economic institutions in the Overview section. In what way are "economic institutions" decentralized? Are you using centralized/decentralized as a euphemism for "public" and "private"?--if so, the euphemistic jargon is too unclear. Eg, private institutions can be (and often are) centralized. Clarify it--I suggest by specifying which kinds of economic institutions you are talking about--or it will get clarified.Blanche Poubelle 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Centralized economic institutions refer to economic institutions in which a larger proportion of societal economic decisions -- for example, production and distribution -- are made by a centralized planning agency (insofar as the term is applied to national economies, we are generally talking about governments).  The distinguishing characteristic here is that there is a "master planner" of the economy.  Decentralized economic institutions are ones in which a lower proportion of national economic decision-making is made by central planners (i.e., governments).  These two terms are ideal types.  Actual economies can vary from ones that have strong central planning (e.g., Soviet systems) to a generally decentralized system with strong government regulation and oversight (typical of the mid-century capitalist system) to very decentralized systems, in which governments are quite hands-off (like late-19th century systems).  In the present context, my own entries (which have thus far avoided the criticism section, but will engage these discussions the future) use the terms "centralized" and "decentralized" to denote a basic change in the capitalist system between the period of (roughly) 1945 to the late-1970s/early-1980s, and from the late-1980s until today.  The change is nuanced, and not as simple as polemics from the left or right might suggest.  An extended overview and empirical exposition is offered in: Joseph Nathan Cohen and Miguel Centeno (2006) "Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance: 1980 to 2000" Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science (pardon the self-citation). jncohen 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying to you is that your definition of "centralized" and "decentralized" is particular to (based on assumptions of) your discipline. What I am asking you to do is to clarify that in the text. Not all disciplines recognize "centralized" as pertaining to government-planned economies only. If you don't want to clarify your position, then I will insert the terms "public" and "private". I trust this is agreeable, since this is not an economics textbook.Blanche Poubelle 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm a sociologist. Here's the problem with making a sharp distinction between using the terms "public" versus "private": In broader historical terms, postwar economies are all "publicly-controlled" ones.  While it's true that there have been some reductions in public sector activity (e.g., reduction of the welfare state, privatization), some areas have actually increased (e.g., social security or health-related payments, or increased reserve banking or relatively constant total expenditures (although the latter may be partly attributable to increased interest payments)).  In some respects, what has changed is how governments have interacted with the economy.  They are still very large and powerful in the grand scope of things, but their role seems to have changed from one in which governments acted as direct managerial administrators to ones in which they are acting as indirect brokers, but still powerful ones nevertheless.


 * My preference for the centralized-decentralized dichotomy does not reflect some simplistic fidelity to a discipline. Rather, in my opinion, this dichotomy best reflects what I see to be the empirical record, and this interpretation has passed peer review in a reputable journal.  I would like to add the belief that governments are not victims who have been usurped by business -- this is also simplistic, as they have played an active role in shaping what has happened and government agents have been beneficiaries of neoliberalism.  I encourage you to consider the evidence given in the article cited above.  I do respect any differences in opinion that you might have on this point and would be happy to discuss it, as I believe you are bringing up a very valid issue.  I do not maintain that my answers are decisive on this issue, and would like to talk about it.  I do think that whatever label is chosen should reflect the empirical record as closely and faithfully as possible. -jncohen 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting perspective. It also illustrates what I had expressed somewhere on this page, which is that "neoliberalism" - as a relatively new economic world-view based on classical economics - itself requires clarification and consensus even in the academic literature on the subject.  Political economy and globalization studies are from my perspective critical; but, I think that it would be too great of a challenge to write a Wikipedia article on the subject until economic historians are ready to analyze it (that is, if there are still historians around at the dusk of the current neoliberal economic cycle).  --Kenneth M Burke 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this issue is plagued by basic conceptual problems. What is worse is that it is very difficult to get a clear picture of how economic governance has changed since 9/11, the rejection of Doha, etc.  The matter is complicated, but BlanchePoubelle is raising an interesting issue with his discussion of how to characterize "neoliberalism" tentatively, while we wait for history to unravel.  His/her public-private dichotomy is a valid one, although I prefer my own framing.  I would be curious to hear other perspectives on the issue from those who study neoliberalism. -jncohen 16:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an area where users could certainly yield the benefits of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia provides the opportunity for individuals with diverse frames of reference to create articles on topics with multiple perspectives from various areas of study.  Notwithstanding the need to refrain from original research, working together to map knowledge in such a way is a challenge when editors can have such widely differentiated backgrounds and points of view.  Neoliberalism is evidently a perfect case in point. --Kenneth M Burke 16:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neoliberalism, neoliberal state and hegemonic cycles
 * Neoliberalism, in the sense of Hayek and the Mount Pélerin society, is not an innovation. Nor can it be reduced to mere opposition to planned economies. David Harvey, in A brief history of Neoliberalism(Oxford UP, 2005) has shown that the neoliberal state is just as eager to intervene where class power and interests are at stake (Harvey, op. cit. p67). Its rise to a historically unique position and influence, as dominant political economy in global capitalism, is linked to the hyper financialisation of the US economy since the days of Paul Volcker. In this context neoliberalism is best interpreted as the best suited ideology for the system-wide financial expansion stage of a hegemonic cycle described by Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly J. Silver in Chaos and governance in the modern world system.--Henri 15:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Monetarist vs. Austrian
"Neoliberalism is associated with Friedrich Hayek and the Austrian School of economics, economics departments such as that at the University of Chicago (and such professors as Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger), and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. None of these parties uses the typically-critical label "neoliberal"; but some have identified with monetarism. Neoliberalism was founded in the movement away from the Keynesian economics that were dominant immediately after World War II in such countries as the U.S. and England, although it has spread to countries without Keynesian policies, as disparate as Sweden, South Africa, Argentina, and Russia. The philosophy promotes a "liberalization" of capital markets (thus called "neoliberal reform")."

-This makes it sound like Friedrich Hayek is a Monetarist but he is of the Austrian School. Jayson Virissimo 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most so-called Neo-liberals (who are actually classic Liberals before socialist-collectivists co=opted the word in the US) are oppossed to the international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, like Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were self proscribed Classic Liberals or just Liberals. By this articles definitions of Neo-Liberalsim tearing down a nation's sovereignty by supporting free trade agreements, then it is not the same thing as traditional liberalism or classic liberalsim, but a hybrid that involves government intventionism where classic liberalsim only allows enough government policy to prevent monopilies and the erosion of national sovereignty. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it makes Hayek sound like a Monetarist. In any case, how might this passage be sharpened?  In my view, Austrian School, Monetarism, or any other "school of thought" moniker is less material than the sense that there were enduring strands of economic thought that felt markets were best left unfettered jncohen 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whereas the Monetarists generally advocate central banks seeking price stability, the Austrians usually advocate liberated banking in addition to the rest of the economy. Because Austrians usually think of money as another (albeit very important) economic good, neoliberal monetary policy still manipulates the economy. In this way Austrians wonder whether the market is really unfettered under prevailing neoliberal policy. Anonymous 14:00, 26 Aug 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.207.221 (talk)

It is also worth noting that lumping Austrian school economists with the IMF and WB is very misleading as most Austrian school economists would support abolishing both institutions, so how Austrian economics and IMF/WB policies can all be part of "neoliberalism" is mysterious and only adds further evidence that the term "neoliberalism" is itself misleading. Being a creation of those who oppose the policies in question, it becomes a cover-all term that obscures much more than it illuminates. This whole entry suffers from numerous other problems as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghorwitz (talk • contribs) 02:44, August 27, 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you are splitting hairs on this one. Both groups advocate removing monetary policy from the hands of elected politicians that could be swayed by populist impulses.  Whereas an Austrian might support removing all government interference with monetary markets, and an IMF/WB position might advocate placing the monetary system in the hands of technocrats, both advocat removing the strong degree of monetary control that was acquired by elected officials/legislators over the postwar era.  Struggles over these types of transfers of economic power -- those characteristic of a transfer from a postwar system to whatever followed stagflation lies at the heart of discussions concerning neoliberalism.  The points of discord you identify do not denote contrasts between those who advocate strongly Keynesian or interventionist policy from those who wanted (non-economist, non-technocratic) government officials to stop mettling in the economy. They are not concerned with the historical event denoted by this term.  -jncohen 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss Deletion of Passage in "Before Neoliberalism" Section
I would like to propose the deletion of the following passage from the "Before Neoliberalism" section: "With few exceptions, the economies of most European countries during Middle Ages were under a considerable degree of state control due to adherence to Mercantilism ideas and the predominance of the Feudalism system. Unsurprisingly, the Middle Ages were characterized by a considerable degree of stagnation."

These are my issues with this passage:
 * 1) Irrelevance.  These notes on Mercantilism and Feudalism are pertinent to classical liberalism, but not neoliberalism per se.  This is not the place to outline the history of capitalism.  Classical liberalism is mentioned because its influence on the rise of neoliberalism was clear and direct.  Feudalism, in my view, has little to no merit here.  Can Hialeahcuban please explain the pertinence of this entry?
 * 2) Poor Precision and Accuracy  Mercantilism is probably better described as a set of policies employed in the early modern world, rather than the Middle Ages.
 * 3) Misleading I take exception to the phrasing that links Mercantilism to economic stagnancy.  This gives the false impression that mercantilism itself was a source of economic stagnancy, which, in my view, is a simplistic reading of history.  Any serious discussion linking poor prosperity to economic governance in the Middle Ages and Early Modern World would be advised to consider issues like political stability and the absence of war, technology, the rise of industry, changes in domestic political organization, or any number of other factors.

These are my objections to this passage, and the reason I wish to delete it. If the passage is to be left in, can it please be addressed? -jncohen 16:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I thank Jncohen for his concerns. I hope that I can deal with them, and that we can come with a resolution that will improve the overall quality of the article.

Relevance: Given that much of Latin America was founded on feudalistic principles (in the form of the encomienda) and subject to a mercantilist system until well into the eighteenth century (for reference, see the article on mercantilism in Spanish), I believe that it is relevant to provide a historical sketch that mentions these two principles of statecraft. Their importance in shaping the region's values (in particular, the strong preference for statist economic policies) cannot be understated and appears in numerous places in the literature.

Time frame: While some parts of Europe discarded much of the mercantilist system durin their expansionary phase (the Netherlands and England come to mind), Spain did not. Its colonies were subject to mercantilist controls until the late eighteenth century (this was the cause of serious clashes between the Spanish Crown and the Cuban criollos).

Economic Impact of Mercantilism: As was the case with socialism, I believe that mercantilism inherently led to economic stagnation. While the factors that you mentioned played an important rule in fueling economic growth, most of them are tied into kind of economic system that operated in a given country. For instance, where mercantilism prevailed, there were few technological developments of the kind seen in the more capitalistic countries (case in point: Spain following its Golden Age). Nonetheless, even though I believe them to be redundant, I would have no problem with them being added. Likewise, I have no problem with adding political factors, such as the absence of war, that affected economic growth. Hialeahcuban 18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Hialeahcuban:


 * 1. Let's begin with your third point, on the Economic Impact of Mercantilism: It may be your point of view that "mercantilism inherently [leads] to economic stagnation", but this is:
 * Not appropriate for the entry on neoliberalism. I recommend you make this argument in the entry for mercantilism
 * Non-neutral point-of-view. Wikipedia is not a forum for personal points of view.  Your suggestions that mercantilism inherently leads to stagnancy is not a consensus view in the history of economics literature.  Broad assertions of this nature are, in my own view, a rather simplistic reading of economic history.  Furthermore, my reading of the literature is that those who insisted  that mercantilism was a sufficient explanation of stagnancy were generally strong supporters of neoliberal policies and their antecedent theories (note the past tense, as the case is hardly made in strong forms in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals).  This makes your views on mercantilism a somewhat stealthy insertion of POV.  In any case, the entry on neoliberalism is NOT the place for you to advance these views -- they should be advanced in the entry on mercantilism
 * Questionable. Contrary to your belief, I estimate that the VAST majority of economic historians would count technological developments, politics, the abeyance of war and other such factors as both independent of mercantilism's demise and much more likely explanations of prosperity in the nineteenth century.  For example, the scientific and industrial revolutions, or the rise of the early modern state and modern paper money predate the fall of mercantilism -- do you really think that the fall of mercantilism is really more important than these developments?  In any case, they are certainly not the same developments -- they are clearly different in terms of the time and place that these institutional changes occurred.
 * Should you feel that Spanish economic history has a special relationship with mercantilism, I recommend you make an entry on Spain and mercantilism. I don't think that the Neoliberalism entry is the place for it to be.


 * 2. Second, let's discuss the pertinence of the Latin American experience. There is little doubt that one can draw parallels between the structures of the Latin American economy and the feudal system of premodern Europe.  However, its relevance to the early history of Neoliberalism is questionable in my view.  First, the ideology was primarily generated in the rich world, and imposed upon Latin America.  Preexisting Latin American economic structures, and the way that they influenced Latin America's experience with neoliberalism, are better suited for special entries on Latin America and Neoliberalism, OR Latin American economic history.  In my view, they don't have anything to do with the generation of neoliberalism.  Furthermore, your thinking on this topic is not clear to me -- if mercantilism provides a basis for strong state control over the economy in Latin America, how is this pertinent to neoliberalism?  Your discussion of statist Latin America seems more suitable to a discussion of Latin American dirigisme.  I do not see how it is relevant to this article.  This is, of course, assuming that your supposition that Latin America class structures are direct outgrowths of European feudalism, which is somewhat simplistic insofar as I understand the topic.  In any case, the neoliberalism entry is not the place to grapple with these questions and issues.  I don't believe this entry is relevant here.


 * 3. Finally, let's talk about time-frame.  Neoliberalism is a reemergence of classical liberal economic policy principles.  As such, classical liberalism is relevant to this article insofar as it has direct and clear linkages to the topic.  Keynesianism, Import Substitution and any other policy ideology that neoliberalism replaced is relevant insofar as they were the immediate historical antecedents of neoliberalism.  Any other -isms, in my view, makes a mess of this entry.  Discussions of neoliberalism always run the danger of blowing up into long discourses about social stratification, the history of capitalism, free markets vs. communism, and a whole slate of other issues.  If this entry is to be a good one, it needs to maintain its focus on the specific events, changes and issues that are involved with the late-20th century transitions that the concept denotes. -jncohen 00:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded sooner. Now that I have a chance, I wanted to go ahead and address your concerns.


 * 1. I do understand that my contention that mercantlisim inherently leads to stagnation is not a consensus in the literature; however, who's counting numbers? It is impossible to decouple technological and material "progress" from the predominant economic system during any given time. The means of production are not independent of the will and actions of men.


 * 1 Technological developments do not come about in an environment where an inquisitor can have scholars burned at the stake for heretical teachings or where new discoveries are ignored because they are not useful for the purposes of the state.


 * 2 The nineteenth century was no more peaceful than any of the preceding centuries, as there were numerous continental wars throughout the course of the century.


 * 3 The important difference between the nineteenth century and the preceding centuries was the rise of an international liberal order that allowed the scientific discoveries of the preceding centuries to be put to use in improving the living standards of the people of the world. While I recognize that the Scientific Revolution predates the Industrial Revolution, the scientific discoveries of the preceding centuries would have been all for naught in the absence of an economic order that allowed those discoveries to be put to the service of mankind through the Industrial Revolution.

Having said that, I will concede that my statement regarding the relationship between mercantilism and economic stagnancy is not entirely consistent with the POV guidelines of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I will remove that sentence.


 * 2. Neo-liberalism might have been generated in the "rich world" (whatever that means), however, it was adopted by the leadership of the region on a voluntary basis (either as a means of getting debt relief or from an ideological agreement with the precepts of neo-liberalism). Neo-liberalism arose in opposition to the statist tradition that had predominated in Latin American. Therein is lies the pertinence of a brief discussion of mercantilism.


 * 3. With regard to time-frame. If we are discussing the antecedents of neoliberalism, a short blurb on the antecedents of most statist policies ( Keynesianism, Import Substitution and any other policy ideology that neoliberalism replaced) is relevant because it illustrates the continuing ideological clash between interventionist and non-interventionist approaches. With the rise of neo-populist leaders in Latin America, it does no harm to draw attention to the back and forth between the two approaches.Hialeahcuban 18:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, allow me to clarify the issues that seem to be confusing you:
 * 1) The "rich world" can be understood as being the high-income countries of the West -- roughly similar to the pre-1980 members of the OECD, specifically the US.  Should you prefer Cold War terminology, call it the "First World"
 * 2) Whatever your views on the degree to which the tenets of neoliberalism were voluntary, the ideology itself was NOT generated in Latin America.  If anything, it was an outgrowth of American and earlier European (and not so much Spanish, as you claim) economics.  If I give you Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek as early (pre-1980) American and European ("rich world") architects of neoliberal economics, can you give me the early (pre-1980, or even pre-1990) Latin American architects?  Remember: Chileans from the early 1970s were Friedman disciples -- I want to know who you are thinking about when you talk about this Latin American-generated neoliberalism.
 * 3) Your argument with regard to "time-frame" is weak.  I give you specific reasons on why Keynesianism, ISI, etc are pertinent, and you tell me, "Why not include mercantilism?"  Why not include the economies of Ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt while we're at it?  "Why not?" is a lazy reason.
 * 4) Your equation of mercantilism and the Middle Ages is anachronistic.  They occurred in two different periods.  Mercantilism represents the economic policies of the early modern states.  These early modern states, and arguably their city-state predecessors, came during the Renaissance.  My principle source is Ferdnand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism.  Please cite your source. -jncohen 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me go ahead and take a sec to respond:
 * 1) I never said that Neo-liberalism surfaced as an intellectual movement in Latin America. What I have said is that there was an independent intellectual tradition in the region that allowed for the Chileans and others to embrace it (without the "imposition" that most of the populist countries were subject to). You won't find any neo-liberal intellectuals in the region (I know that), however, you will find people that sympathized with it. What do you suppose brought them to that conclusion, if not acceptance of some of neo-liberalisms basic tenets?
 * 2) My argument for timeframe is simple. Without exception, the countries that have undergone a Neo-liberal period have been the victims of state interventionism from time immemorial. There is nothing inappropriate with pointing this out. Indeed, to understand how Neo-liberalism came about, it is important to understand how it fits into a larger intellectual tradition (which had been marked by a constant clash between interventionist and non-interventionist ideologies). Why not go back to the Ancient Rome, Greece or Egypt? Well, while the intellectual tradition of one of the main regions to undergo a Neo-liberal tradition (Latin America) can be traced that far, its early institutions were an immediate product of Mercantilist and Feudal ideas.
 * 3) I will concede that my equation of mercantilism and the Middle Ages is somewhat anachronistic. There were some proto-mercantilist policies that stem from the Middle Ages, as Adam Smith and other Enlightenment economists point out, however, it might be worthwhile to disentangle the two to avoid confusion. Hialeahcuban 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon, my side comments in the debate:
 * I think the "Before Neoliberalism" section is a good idea as it can help to define what neoliberalism is by identifying what neoliberalism is not; but, I think it needs to be written better and calls for a more focused theoretical frame of reference. --Kenneth M Burke 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Latin America in fact might be ideal in differentiating political "liberalism" from economic "liberalism," earlier cycles of economic liberalism and "neoliberalism." --Kenneth M Burke 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kenneth Burke and Hialeahcuban that Latin America is an important locus of action in the unfolding of neoliberalism. I also wholesale agree with Hialeahcuban's latest edits. Maybe the Latin American experience deserves its own section within this entry? -jncohen 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I would start with working on the before neoliberalism section then maybe think about a careful case study, using literature directly concerned with neoliberalism as to not risk original research. --Kenneth M Burke 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In working toward the before neoliberalism history section, I think the page introduction and overview could be re-written to provide for a better context. Economic policies could include definition of both domestic and international policies as a subsection of the overview. --Kenneth M Burke 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Neoliberalism Still Ongoing? Response to JettaMann's edits
According to JettaMann, stating the possibility that neoliberalism may be an artifact of the 1990s is POV, and proclaiming that it is definitely ongoing is NPOV. I contend that the opposite it true: rejecting the possibility that neoliberalism is in decline is, in fact, the POV position -- one that asserts "neoliberalism will never die", and dismisses those who contend otherwise as "wishful thinkers". Charges of wishful thinking may serve as evidence to listeners of talk radio, but a more informed audience might ask for more than characterizations arguments.

My claim is based on the observations that (from Joseph Cohen and Miguel Centeno (2006) "Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science): I could add more to the list, but will reserve it for an paper in progress. I have, however, offered some arguments presented in peer-reviewed journals. I'm going to wait to see if JettaMann is able to support his own position that neoliberalism is still going strong. JettaMann: Do you have anything to back your arguments up (evidence, not pure assertions), or is your charge of "wishful thinking" just a lot of talk?jncohen 13:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Cutbacks to government expenditures generally bottomed out around 1995
 * 2) The use of import tariffs appeared to be on the rise by the late-1990s
 * 3) Trade growth appeared to stall in the early 2000s
 * 4) FDI started dropping after the turn of the milennium


 * I'm not JettaMann, but I think there's a wide number of academic sources who would claim that neoliberalisation is still underway. Much of the disagreement likely lies in the how the term is operationalized.  An argument about of the new direction and forms of neoliberalism can be found in J. Peck and A. Tickell (2002) "Neoliberalzing Space."  Antipode 34(3): 380-404; S. Radcliffe (2005) "Neoliberalism as we know it, but not in conditions of its own choosing" Environment and Planning A(37):323-329 is a summary of work on neoliberalism in Latin America; and a discussion of neoliberalism's mark on trade agreements and the environment is in E. Hartwick and R. Peet (2003) "Neoliberalism and Nature: The Case of the WTO" Annals of the AAPSS 590: 188-211.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.71.221 (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In no way am I claiming that neoliberalism is certainly dead. JettaMann's position is that neoliberalism is certainly ongoing, and (s)he charges that entertaining the possibility that neoliberalism has died off is POV.  My position is that neoliberalism's continuity is in question.  On the topic of neoliberalism's operationalization -- of course: ultimately, assessing the continuity of any phenomenon depends on how you define that phenomenon.  To the extent that neoliberalism can be defined as the sorts of policy changes outlined in the article -- free trade, expenditure cutbacks, free exchange rates, privatization, regulatory cuts, etc.  -- my position is that its continuity is a matter of question. (I don't know if it is the best operationalization, but it is concrete, specific and directly tied to the policies explicitly recommended by those who are often cited as key architects of the policy movement)  I have not yet read the articles you cite above.  Incorporating their views into the article could be very valuable.  Cited additions in the front portions of the article are lacking, and the article could be made much richer with the incorporation of other literatures. -jncohen 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Grinning"?
I removed the description of Ronald Reagan "grinning" as he signed legislation, because 1. it's not relevant, and 2. there's nothing in the original material to indicate it's true. On reading the original, I also felt the paraphrase given in the article was inaccurate, so I replaced it with "Joe Conason has argued..." followed by a direct quote. --Dcfleck 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is actually film footage of Reagan sayingthe "jackpot" quote, and he is grinning. I agree though: Including the information about him grinning makes it looks as if he were some kind of capitalist class toady.Blanche Poubelle (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

POV?
The most of the article is criticism written in unapologetic commie style. I think POV tag should be added. Lex aver 14:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The criticisms of neoliberalism are clearly separated into their own section.  Why wouldn't the section on criticisms strike a critical tone? Should you see the need to defend neoliberalism, I recommend that you contribute to a section that outlines reasons for supporting it.  The article is still very much incomplete, so your contribution would be valuable.  I hope to contribute to such a section, but a new baby daughter has seriously slowed my Wikipedia contributionsjncohen 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite sure this 'Criticisms of Neoliberalism'-part isn't written from a NPOV. And that's not because I disagree with your opinion, but because it IS your opinion. It's not only facts, it's also propaganda. For example this line: "And Cuba did exactly that: it survived the battle of neo-liberalism." It refers to a speaker quoted in the previous line, and then presents us with the writer's opinion. I don't care for the writer's opinion. I want to know what facts exist about neo-liberalism. Then I can decide my disposition towards it myself. Now I stopped reading halfway because I feel I am mainly reading opinions. And, contrary to what you hope, again see the flaws of socialism and communism: they are doctrines, working through indoctrination just like your hated neo-liberalism.


 * The problem with politics is that it can seldom be described from a neutral point of view, and I know it is hard to write critiques about a theory you don't like. But critique is only valid if it's (near) neutral. And although I'm opposed to neo-liberalism (my ideology can at best be described anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist) I don't think rhetorics should be part of an encyclopedia. If you want to voice your opinions, please do it somewhere else. Blaauboer (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points. Why not make the corrective edits? -jncohen (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole section looks like it was written by Chavez's 4th grade nephew. Needs a total rework and we need to watch for the propaganda and demand relevant on topic facts before this thing gets out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * At the very least, those who are contributing to the criticisms section show evidence of having read something and are making an earnest effort to improve the article. Yes, many of them are a little too taken with expose-style journalistic treatments of the topic, but they're at least more helpful than someone who contributes NOTHING but name-calling to this article.  Why not pick up a book, read something, and try to say something intelligent on the topic?


 * That being said, I agree with you that the section needs reworking, although there are many kernels of important ideas that are worth maintaining. Hopefully, it is possible for us to engage this debate constructively, and with more substantive discussion rather than broad, but otherwise unhelpful, characterizational arguments.


 * In my view, the section would be best served by construing the section as "The Politics of Neoliberalism". There are serious reasons that people support and oppose neoliberalism, and these can each be treated separately under sub-headers: Arguments Favoring Neoliberalism and Arguments Opposing Neoliberalism.


 * I propose the topics such as these be treated under the sub-section "Arguments Favoring Neoliberalism". I would be happy to pariticpate in a discussion about how to properly synopsize them.
 * Free markets are important to securing political freedom (e.g., Hayek, Friedman)
 * Many developing countries' governments had mismanaged or exploited their economic dominance during over the mid-century
 * Many government attempts to micro-manage their economies using things like tariffs, public investment, etc. were often misdirected, poorly timed, poorly implemented and bore undesirable, unanticipated consequences. Many scholars doubt that a government is capable of managing a social system as huge as a national economy
 * Market liberalization is supposed to spur investment, technology transfer, innovation and a responsiveness to consumer demand
 * Government-owned enterprises and public entitlements were losing a lot of money, and helping bankrupt governments
 * During the 1970s, state-controlled economies proved unresponsive to economic shocks, and much of the world endured a sustained, high-inflation recession until markets were liberalized (though it is important to note that liberalization itself is only one of several explanations for our recent return to prosperity -- other factors include things like technological developments or the end of the Cold War


 * For "Arguments Against Neoliberalism:, I would propose:
 * Subversion of democratic process and government accountability -- neoliberal reforms remove economic control from elected officials and place them in the hands of technocrats, who may or may not share public interest. Many reforms were instituted against popular will, and often by outside coercion.
 * Anti-equalizing effects -- wages have been stagnant in the rich world, and over much of the world except Asia.
 * Anti-sovereignty -- globalization and liberalization is often argued to have subverted nation's ability for self-determination
 * Exploitation -- neoliberalism has coincided with a rise in human trafficking, many multinational enterprises have been found to have outsourced jobs away from markets in which laborers (and children) are protected to those that are not
 * Environmental costs. More transportation, more industrial production in unregulated markets
 * Increased Vulnerability to Terrorism and Pandemics (?)


 * These are just ideas. While I disagree with their insults ("Chavez's fourth grader" or "commie"), I have thought that the criticism section needs some work, and have so far avoided dabbling in it because it is so polemical.  However, a serious, scholastic treatment of these issues will be required before this article improved.


 * Also, does anyone know how to add pictures to this article? -jncohen (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Read this. Btw, I agree that criticism section is in terrible shape. -- Vision Thing -- 22:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request Clarification on Ordermaven Edits
Can Ordermaven or someone else clarify Ordermaven's edit that substantial deregulation efforts preceded the Reagan administration? I believe it, but would like specifics. Was Nixon a serious deregulator? I doubt Carter or Ford... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncohen (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. Thank you Sinebot! -jncohen 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * David Harvey writes in A brief history of neoliberalism that "Carter had shifted uneasily towards deregulation (of airlines and trucking) as a partial solution to the crisis of stagflation". --Henri 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I did not consider Carter to be a major deregulator.  If there's someone who has expertise in US economic policy during the Carter administration, it would be a great contribution to get more detail on pre-Reagan deregulatory efforts, if they were substantial.  -jncohen 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Tag
Someone put up a POV tag, but put nothing of substance in the talk page. PLease note that I have nothing to do with that section and think it is a mess, but I hate people putting up the tag without setting up a debate. The tag is meant to steer people to a debate in the talk pages.

A debate must be associated with this tag, and no such debate is present on the discussion page. If no case for POV is made, then I propose taking down the tag. Can someone please mount an intelligent case for POV in the criticism section? -jncohen (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no debate. I'm axing the tag. -Gomm 21:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomm (talk • contribs)


 * And still none, probably because the tag is spurious, but let's give it another try. 71.186.179.146 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody actually call themself a Neoliberal?
From what I've read, it seems to me that the term "Neoliberal" is simply used by the far left (mostly in Europe) as a codeword for a specific variety of Capitalism in which the government subsidizes big business and throws money at the military. I don't understand how "Neoliberalism" has anything to do with Classical Liberalism, as Classical Liberals oppose the likes of Pinochet, Thatcher, and Reagan (all of whom were conservative politicians who ran military spending through the roof and gave handouts to big business). Classical liberalism (at least according to my understanding of it) is a middle ground position between Libertarianism and modern Liberalism which attempts to strike a balance between freedom and equality (modern liberals back equality at the expense of freedom, while libertarians back freedom at the expense of equality). More to the point, I don't think anybody actually refers to themself as being "Neoliberal," so I don't think the article should refer to the term as describing a political movement, as it appears to me to be a straw man set up to attack Capitalism (correct me if I'm wrong on this point). Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody calls Their judgment poor. Does that mean poor Judgment doesn't exist? Good issues raised.  My responses:
 * The fact that people do not use a label in self-reference is not a strong argument against the validity of the label. Few people would regard themselves as "stupid", "irrational" or "bigoted", but this does not mean that there is no stupidity, irrationality or bigotry in the world.
 * It does not matter who uses the term. This is an ad hominem argument.
 * Neoliberalism is not the same as Classical Liberalism (or else there would be no need for the former word). The two are similar in that they favor self-organized economies, as opposed to government-administered ones.
 * I have never known Classical Liberalism to be a middle ground between Libertarianism and modern Liberalism. Whose arguments are you thinking about specifically?  Classical Liberalism, in my own view, refers to post-Mercantilist, but pre-Keynesian or pre-Depression economic theorizing, which did not envision a strong role for government intervention in the organization of aggregate economies.
 * Neoliberalism is not a straw man set up to attack capitalism, unless you take the policies of Reagan, Thatcher, etc. to be the essence of capitalism itself. You are thinking of communism.  Neoliberalism does not attack the market system, private property or other core elements of the capitalist system.  It is a criticism of the major economic policy ideas or beliefs that guided governments' economic reforms from the 1980s through the early 21st century.  -13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is Angela Davis now?
Angela Davis is not a sociologist at Berkeley. She is a professor in the History of Consciousness at UC-Santa Cruz. Katking 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. This one time, I made this change for you, Katking. Please execute your editing suggestions yourself on Wikipedia pages. Cheers. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neoliberalism vs Neoconservatism
I am confused. There is basically no difference between the two. I am not sure why, but I thought Neoliberals support such things as universal healthcare and education among other social programs, while Neoconservatives oppose it and are all for privatization. I take Jean Chretien as an example. He had fiscal policies similar to the conservatives(tax cuts, spending cuts, balanced budget) but he never was a big fan of privatization.Or am I wrong? So can somebody explain the difference between two neos?

P.S: Also I thought Bill Clinton was a good example of Neoliberal.


 * Pretty much anyone making economic policy in the early post-Cold War years was influenced by at least some of neoliberalism's tenets. I am not an expert on Cretien (so correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that a lot of major enterprises were privatized early under Mulroney (e.g., Air Canada, Petro Canada, Canada Post).  Still, there were a lot of forces that Cretien couldn't resist, not the least of which was public debt.  This sort of forced him fiscally.  A lot of "neoliberal" policy was not necessarily made out of a belief in free market economics per se, but an adherence to its tenets as a response to financial strains.
 * Clinton was quite a neoliberal, at least with respect to trade policy. He tried for decidedly non-neoliberal policy, like his public health care plan.-jncohen (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole entry misses the basic point. Neoliberalism as it was originally conceived is not a dressed up conservatism, but rather it is a reconsideration of liberal dogma by liberals who are unafraid to consider the possibility that conservatives criticizing liberalism may occasionally make valid points.

The term "neoliberal" was coined in 1978 by Charles Peters in the Washington Monthly. In a 1983 article, he stated, "If neoconservatives are liberals who took a critical look at liberalism, we are liberals who took the same look and decided to retain our goals but to abandon some of our prejudices." (Washington Monthly, May, 1983) BDucks82 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't get the answers I expected, oh well.

I just thought there could be clear line drawn between the two.
 * Like for example libertarianism and communism, or fascism and anarchism.

I still do not get point of Neoliberalism vs. Neoconservatism.
 * While I see the quote provided from BDucks82, I 'd like to see some specifics.

I am a huge fan of Clinton and Chretien. But I just cannot associate them with faults of Reagan, Harper or Bush. I might be wrong, but if I am, either of the terms should be erased.

-

Neoliberalism as defined by Charles Peters and championed in the pages of the Washington Monthly, is dedicated to "third way" approaches to the problems confronting the US and the world. The idea was to consider approaches other than the standard liberal and conservative orthodoxies. A common theme of neoliberal third way approaches was to attempt to harness the power of open markets to accomplish liberal or center-left objectives. Most of Bill Clinton's accomplishments could be seen as triumphs of neoliberalism, although by the end of his term of office, Clinton's critics had adopted "triangulation" as a pejorative synonym for third way approaches.

Neoliberal approaches, with their acknowledgment of the power of the marketplace are anathema to communists, who favor central-planning over open markets. By the time Clinton left office, references in leftist literature had expanded the scope of neoliberalism to include any market-oriented approach--including those intended to advance conservative as well as liberal agendas. More recent leftist publications (e.g., Strange Liberators by Gregory Elich) have completed the process, using neoliberalism as a synonym for laissez faire conservatism.

The current Wikipedia article on Neoliberalism is dominated by by this wrong-headed leftist redefinition of neoliberalism. I feel it should be scrapped and rewritten from scratch.BDucks82 (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you BDucks82, it seems incredibly flawed article which should be rewritten. I                        sometimes indetified myself as neo-liberal, because I like the idea of "free" education, healthcare etc. but I also agree with conservative approach to not free, but more free markets with government assistance if it's crucial. With cutting waste and unnecessary programs. I thought I am conservative at some point, but religious conservatism is just plain wrong for me. Just as "lets cut taxes and everything will be peachy,oh, and fuck the debt" is also plain wrong imo. I think neoliberalism is bigger and more complicated. But my guess is I am just a moderate, the class nobody can give a definition to. Oh well!

I don't understand your main points, BDucks82. Are you saying that this article should profile the term "neoliberalism" as the term was used by Charles Peters, or how it is used more broadly? Your point on the term's etymology may be valid, but few who use the term "neoliberalism" use it in that way. Still, I think your claims about the words origins are worth noting within the main text of the article, if they can be reasonably substantiated.

Also, it is my understanding that the "liberal" part of "neoliberalism" is not referring to "liberalism" in the US electoral sense, but rather liberalism in the sense of Classical Liberalism. Your quote of Peters is a nice one, but I wonder whether he is as central a character in the development of discourse associated with "neoliberalism" as your passage suggests. In this sense, I don't know if the discussion is as "wrong headed" as you suggest. All of this depends on the degree to which this concept refers to traditional US left-vs-right debates. My sense is that it is not so much related to electoral politics, as much as it is a paradigm shift among policy-makers and analysts who might not be political partisans. Clinton's policies, as well as Reagan's policies, can be construed as neoliberal in the sense that they are founded on the premise that markets work better than governments at allocating economic resources. Rather than compare these views across contemporaneous political lines, it makes more sense to compare them with postwar understandings of what constitutes good or practical policy.jncohen (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

are you kidding me?
You're citing "history of consciousness professor Angela Davis" as a credible source on Neoliberalism. That's just an example of what a piece of biased shit this article is. This entire article is just a series of quotes by anti-neo-liberal "intellectuals." Trash. I'm not an editor. Somebody please NPOV tag this shit and put some serious work into an encyclopedic article. --149.159.95.160 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not actually contribute to the section titled "Arguments Favoring Neoliberalism", and add some cited material from intellectuals that you deem fit. Sitting back and bitching is lazy.  Do you think that you have anything to contribute, beyond complaints or erasing words or passages that you don't like?  Why not read a book on the topic and contribute something? -jncohen (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed
I do not know much on neoliberalism, but it seems to me parts of this article need re-working, what with citations of similarity to Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, but then later suggested (and unverified) claims that it is authoritarian and producing of gross societal inequalities. I am no expert, but isn't that part about authoritarian libertarian a bit.... what's the word... self-contradictory? And about societal inequalities, isn't that part of the point of this and similar philosophies (the idea that it is NOT the government's job to baby citizens, but that citizens should take the initiative and be responsible for their own lives, as opposed to pure large-scale communism)? Also, it seems to me a lay encyclopedic reader that a great deal of this article comes out against neoliberalism (even some of the non-Criticism sections), and is not as neutral as it could be, though I can see from the comments here a NPOV tag seems an almost charged issue..

Anyway, as I said, I do not know enough about neoliberalism to fix this article myself. But I do know about Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, and have read up a fair amount on each. As an aside, the online Moral Politics test/quiz (hardly a reputable source, I realize) classified me as a neoliberal progressive, and the information provided therein seemed to tell me Neoliberals were very similar to both Libertarians and Classical Liberals, focusing perhaps mainly though on low taxes and fewer regulations/other governmental complexities (which I support both).

I wonder if any of the inconsistancies I find in the article have much to do with 1) some people misunderstanding the difference between socialism, liberalism, and the US Democratic Party (each are distinct, even from neoliberalism, if you ask me); and 2) confusing fewer government regulations with so-called Anarchistic Chaos (in which there is no government to regulate at all). 'Just a musing, I don't mean anything definitive or accusing by it.

Also, the Comparisons to Other Ideologies section could do with a few sources (currently it has one, linking neoliberalism with neoconservatism), IMHO; meant as a general suggestion/another musing, because I realize the burden of finding evidence for certain proofs. :) P.S. I'm not sure if I'm signing this right, or if I used the right tag on the article, merely trying to help. -69.42.232.92 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your disputations are unclear. I understand your first inconsistency and I agree - libertarian authoritarianism makes little sense.  Your remaining points are unclear.  Please tag questionable statements in the main text of the article, as outlined in WP:AD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jncohen (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, and thanks for the link; I was unsure how to tag labels and such. :) I have added a dozen or so tags to various wordings and claims in the article. I've also removed the two ambiguous references to authoritarianism (neoconservatism was also mentioned in those two sentences, which is perhaps what was meant by the phrases; however, I figured it safe enough to delete, on the grounds that this is not an article about neoconservatism). In light of this, I have removed the disputed tag from the main article header. Thanks again, and long live the Wiki! :D -69.42.232.92 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good contribution, and I agree with most of the tags. The bullet list at the outset of the Criticisms section was written by me in the discussion section, and then pasted directly into the article by someone else.  I notice that you didn't tag a similar list that I wrote in support of neoliberal policies.  They are just as contentious and unsubstantiated.
 * I originally put them in the discussion section in order to encourage people on both sides of this debate to do some research and find specific citations, rather than engage in the non-productive,unresearched spats that have been characteristic of both sides that treat this as a partisan debate. (I have to resist spending time on this article, as it is a persistent distraction from work).  Your tags might encourage contribution.  Alternatively, it may be better that we take both bullet lists out?
 * Do not be too timid in deleting passages that you find objectionable. The article will improve much more quickly if you do, and there will be plenty of people who hold a competing ideology and would be just as quick to revert anything that they oppose. This is the marketplace of ideas that has made Wikipedia a good source when it works well.-jncohen (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't think that you needed to remove the "Disputed" tag -jncohen (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good eye! I added the tags yesterday in spurts - doing a section and then going offline, doing something else, and returning for another section. I suppose I may have just seen the bullets and thought I'd gone through it already (there being what, four bullet lists)? ;) Anyway, I've added similar tags to the Arguments Favoring Neoliberalism section - though I should mention I didn't go through the Anglo-America, and European & Latin American sections under Criticisms. Maybe another day I will. :) -69.42.232.92 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neoliberlism as a misnomer in America
The article however biased or not, does not clearly illuminate the narrow acceptance of 'neoliberalism' in common vernacular. The average person may consider neoliberalism as a kind of modern liberalism, much like neoconservatism is to conservativism. It appears the authors intend to obfuscate liberalism's Marxist foundations by planting their flag on the capitalist mountain. Perhaps it does make better sense in the German political party system, and the disambiguation should appear above the content of the article. Otherwise, Neoliberlism is a misnomer in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.180.95 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marxist's oppose neoliberals. It's actually the OPPOSITE - right-wing ideologues attempting to plant their flag on the genuinely liberal mountain where Marxism has it's camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.203.125 (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, neo-liberalism and Marxism are two very different things. How, can I ask, does liberalism have Marxist foundations? Marx wrote after John Locke and Adam Smith, not before. Marx's writings were a response to the impact of liberal ideology in that the rise of capitalism was founded in liberal ideology.
 * Yes. And Marx used the word 'ideology' to describe theories or beliefs which are unconscious expressions of something else or camouflage the promotion of special interests. His own best example: In 1848, the bourgeoisie spoke of Liberty, Fraternity, Equality, but what they really meant were Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a cute critique of Classical Liberal ideology Bjenks, but I think the point that this frustratingly inane discussion highlights is North Americans' inherent misunderstanding of standard ideological concepts. Specifically, the inability to distinguish between Conservative (social traditionalist, not necessarily anti-statist), Liberal (progressive, individual rights, laissez faire) and Leftist (marxist, social and economic justice) political positions. It is most likely caused by the bipartisan political system and the general lack of political awareness in the country. The rest of the world seems to have no trouble identifying "neoliberalism" as a resurgence of classical liberal economic policy, which is btw, towards the Right of the political spectrum. 79.152.166.146 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

criticism?
is this section really just going to be critical exerpts from various unknown, unremarkable academics? I mean, the Clinton white house conspired to incarcerate as many working class people as possible in order to keep the unemployment rate down? That doesn't even make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.146.210 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody has updated this to reflect neoliberalism's role in the creation of the current global economic system, and perhaps more importantly, its collapse due to those same neoliberal policies (deregulation, privatization). It is quite frequently commented on as the root cause of the crisis in European news outlets. 79.152.166.146 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this just another right wing ploy to create a term to counter neoconservatism?
This article is almost funny, what with all the errors. Perhap it belongs on converservapedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lanuage / Grammar
This article needs edited for grammar. It looks like a primary school student wrote some of the passages. Antilog (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean, "needs to be edited?"--151.201.141.47 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need so many articles for the same thing?
How many articles does wikipeida have that are all about the exact same political ideology, namely extreme right-wing economic theory? We have probably over 100 articles on the exact same topic. Truly ludicrous.

its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. We could remove all of the content in this article and replace it with "A pejorative term for (link)Classical Liberalism(/link)." What is the case against doing just this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.140.50 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do as you suggest but Clue bot sucks. Wikipedia sucks in general anyway. 216.2.193.1 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

'Neo-Liberalsim and Classic Liberalism are not the same thing' or 'This article is contradictory or wrong'
Most so-called Neo-liberals (who are actually classic Liberals before socialist-collectivists co-opted the word in the US) are oppossed to the international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, like Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were self proscribed Classic Liberals or just Liberals. By this articles definitions of Neo-Liberalsim tearing down a nation's sovereignty by supporting free trade agreements, then it is not the same thing as traditional liberalism or classic liberalsim, but a hybrid that involves government intventionism where classic liberalsim only allows enough government policy to prevent monopilies and the erosion of national sovereignty. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is politically biased and factually innaccurate
The entire section on the benefits of neoliberalism is full of things that are simply factually innaccurate, and heavily disputed by all serious scholars. This is like having an article on creationism that only references church bulletins! (actually no, it's more like having an article on a Microsoft product that only references Windows advertisements, a much more serious problem, quite frankly...) I have just edited the introduction to attempt to extract all of the ridiculous POV rubbish that was in there, and include some actual references to things that are not just "Think Tank" reports (seriously!), but this is a big job and i cannot do it alone. The entire tone of the article is geared toward the promotion of neoliberalism, not the dispassionate description of it. This is ridiculous, considering most of the promotional material for neoliberalism is generated by politically biased entities that make large amounts of money specifically on the promotion of neoliberalism (e.g. think tanks). 118.208.203.125 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So flag up the unsubstantiated sections as disputed or POV and call for some help. --202.78.149.227 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this (original) comment. All the article is just a huge promotion advertising neoliberalism!!! All taht says is "oh, look at neoliberalism, it is so good!" and cites all the (supposed) good that neoliberalism "does" to countrys that have embraced it and had "good results", while ignoring all the bad examples (see Argentina economic crisis of 2001), and repeating, ¡Oh, look, the miracle of Chile! or, ¡Hong Kong, it's RICH!, besides, it ignores all the negatives features that generates in those countries, but higlights the "positives" (it even cites "freedom of market" as a inherently and universaly positive quality, not from the neoliberalist view, but from the "wikipedian" view, not citing like "neoliberals think..."). If you want examples...

''Since Thatcher resigned as British Prime Minister in 1990, UK economic growth was on average higher than the other large EU economies (,i.e. Germany, France and Italy). Additionally, since the beginning of the 2000s, the UK has also possessed lower unemployment, by comparison with the other big EU economies. Such an enhancement in relative macroeconomic performance is perhaps another reason for the apparent "Blatcherite" economic consensus, which has been present in modern UK politics for a number of years.''

Not citing even any reference! and using weasel words like "is perhaps another reason"... unnaceptable.

All of these other statements I cite are obvious propaganda:

''The Administration of Ronald Reagan governed from 1981 to 1989, and made a range of decisions that served to liberalize the American economy. These policies are often described as Reaganomics, and are often associated with supply-side economics (the notion that policies should appeal to producers, in order to lower prices, and therefore make products more affordable, rather than consumers, in order to cultivate economic prosperity).

During Reagan's tenure, the economy recovered and grew during Reagan's remaining years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year.[28] Unemployment dropped and inflation significantly decreased.''

-

''It has ranked as the world's freest economy in the Index of Economic Freedom for 14 consecutive years, since the inception of the index in 1995. It also places first in the Economic Freedom of the World Report.

This policy has often been cited as an example of the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism.[citation needed]

A 1994 World Bank report stated that Hong Kong's GDP per capita grew in real terms at an annual rate of 6.5% from 1965 to 1989. This consistent growth percentage over a span of almost 25 years has been described as remarkable for any economic analysis.By 1990 Hong Kong's per capita income officially surpassed that of the ruling United Kingdom.''

-

Hong Kong has leaned to more laissez-faire policies than other countries, creating one of the most successful economic stories in history. (Why? According to who? In what ways? With what source?)

-

''The Miracle of Chile is a term coined by Milton Friedman to describe dictator Augusto Pinochet's support for liberal economic reforms in Chile carried out by the "Chicago Boys." Implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down.[34] At the time, Milton Friedman stated that the Chilean experiment was "comparable to the economic miracle of post-war Germany."

Successive governments have continued and expanded neoliberal policies in Chile.

Chile is the world's 11th "most free" economy today. Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a "regional leader" for over a decade. Chile had GDP growth of 6.1% in 2004, and has averaged a 4.0% annual increase in GDP over the last five years for which data is available.

Currently, Chile is one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations. Within the greater Latin American context it leads in terms of competitiveness, quality of life, political stability, globalization, economic freedom, low perception of corruption and comparatively low poverty rates. It also ranks high regionally in freedom of the press, human development and democratic development. Its status as the region's richest country in terms of gross domestic product per capita (at market prices and purchasing power parity) is countered by its high level of income inequality, as measured by the Gini index.

The experience of Chile in the 1970s and 1980s, and especially the export of the Chilean pension model by former Labor Minister Jose Pinera, has influenced the policies of the Communist Party of China and has been invoked as a model by economic reformers in other countries, such as Boris Yeltsin in Russia and almost all Eastern European post-Communist societies. (ah, but what don't you tell us what happened with those economic reforms in Russia, eastern Europe and other neoliberal post-communist societies? maybe they don't want us to know this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Russian_Federation), extract: During and after the disintegration of the USSR when-wide ranging reforms including privatisation and market and trade liberalization were being undertaken,[76] the Russian economy went through a major crisis. This period was characterized by deep contraction of output, with GDP declining by roughly 50 percent between 1990 and the end of 1995 and industrial output declining by over 50 percent.[77][76] In October 1991, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and International Monetary Fund.[78][79] Price controls were abolished, privatization was started. Millions were plunged into poverty. According to the World Bank, whereas 1.5% of the population was living in poverty in the late Soviet era, by mid-1993 between 39% and 49% of the population was living in poverty.[80] Delays in wage payment became a chronic problem with millions being paid months, even years late. Russia took up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, even though its population made up just half of the population of the USSR at the time of its dissolution.[81] The privatization process largely shifted control of enterprises from state agencies to groups of individuals with inside connections in the Government and the mafia. Violent criminal groups often took over state enterprises, clearing the way through assassinations or extortion. Corruption of government officials became an everyday rule of life. Many of the newly rich mobsters and businesspeople took billions in cash and assets outside of the country in an enormous capital flight.[82] The long and wrenching depression was coupled with social decay. Social services collapsed and the birth rate plummeted while the death rate skyrocketed. The early and mid-1990s was marked by extreme lawlessness. Criminal gangs and organized crime flourished and murders and other violent crime spiraled out of control.[83]

In 1993 a constitutional crisis resulted in the worst civil strife in Moscow since the October Revolution.[85] President Boris Yeltsin illegally[86] dissolved the country's legislature which opposed his moves to consolidate power and push forward with unpopular neo-liberal reforms; in response, legislators barricaded themselves inside the White House, impeached Yeltsin and elected a new President and major protests against Yeltsin's government resulted in hundreds killed. With military support, Yeltsin sent the army to besiege the parliament building and disperse its defenders and used tanks and artillery to eject the legislators.''

-

Well, etc. All the article is completely biased, factually innacurate, exagerates and remarks tiresly everything "on favor" of neoliberalism while in most cases simply doesn't mentions all the "negative" sides and exmples. Not worthy of wikipedia article, this is more like a neoliberal panflet, belonging to the "neoliberal topic on all the good that neoliberalism is and does for the world". The critics included are lame on arguments and full of encovered counter-arguments and responses, while the "on favor" aren't (even seeing that everithing "neutral" is also on favor. All the text that I cited previously is supposed to be part of the "neutral" section, while you can see a mile away is is a far to be neutral like an advertisement on a product. It says "Hey! Neoliberalism is good! 'Buy it' now! It comes with a lot of benefits! And if you call rigth now we include in your package accelerated grow rate and increase of exports! Don't doubt any further! Order it!" --190.174.78.154 (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Foucault on Neoliberalism
Fellow editors,

This is my first post so please be gentle.... I recently did some research on the subject of neoliberalism and found an interesting work by Michel Foucault on the subject. This is what I wrote about it and I wonder if it would be worthwhile to incorperate this in the article..

In 1979 Michel Foucault gave a number of lectures at the College de France that contained the results of his study of the subject of neo-liberalism, a paper was written about these lectures by Thomas Lemke and published in 2001. Interestingly Foucault describes two schools of neo-liberalism (notice the hyphenation), The Freiburg Schule and its heir the Chicago School. The Freiburg Schule had layed the foundation for German post-war liberalism. In opposition to the Frankfurter schule and Adorno and Horkheimer the Freiburg Schule believed that the rise of the Nazi’s to power was not caused by liberalism, but by the lack of it. The Freiburg schule didn’t believe the choice of political-economy was between communism and capitalism, but rather between liberalism and different forms of state interventionism, like national socialism or Keynesianism. This resulted in the Ordo-liberal scheme, which argued that the market can only be constituted and kept alive by means of political intervention. Pure competition, although unattainable, is the target which legitimates legal measures and other political interventions. Capitalism was viewed as a singular historical construct that by means of intervention could be changed into a new capitalism. The Ordo-liberals replace the conception of the economy as a domain of autonomous rules and laws by a concept of ‘economic order’ (Foucault uses the original German term ‘Wirtschaftsordnung’) as an object of social intervention and political regulation (Lemke, 2001:194, italics in original) The social interventions mentioned had two important aspects. First they where intended to create a framework that obeyed the principle of “equal inequality for all” and in which there was a material basis for enterprise. Second it acted as a form of Vitalpolitik, which was supposed to reproduce and reactivate moral and cultural values that opposed the free-play of the economy and were therefore threatened by it. These social interventions made by politics where based on a perceived difference between the economic and the social domain. Struggling with the mediating function that enterprise had between the economic and the social domain the Chicago school economists started looking for a different solution. This is what spawned the Chicago school neoliberalism (notice the lack of hyphenation). Central figures in this process were the Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and George Stigler all of whom received Nobel Prizes in Economics for their works. These authors made an epistemological shift that radically expanded the object addressed by economy (Lemke, 2001:197). As a result of this shift all spheres of human behavior became subject to economic methods of analysis. All human behavior individual and collective was studied on the basis of allocation of scant resources towards competing goals. The Chicago School neoliberalism had spawned the concept of Economic rationality and its bearer the Homo Oeconomicus. It is at this point that neoliberal theory started to diffuse into other scientific disciplines. The expansion into the social sphere allowed it to critically analyze sociology and anthropology. The conception of the human as an economically rational actor combined well with the more behaviorist approach to social theory (Homans, 1958) and this in turn led to Rational Choice Theory (Olson, 1965, Coleman, 1988, 1990). The expansion of economic theory into the sphere of politics created new relations between the political and the economic. The market principle came to be defining for the working of the state, critical evaluation of government practices by means of market concepts lead to ‘a kind of permanent economic tribunal’ (‘une sorte de tribunal économique permanent’) (Lemke, 2001: 198). The state was supposed to no longer define and monitor the market. The relation between the state and the individual also changed. As the individual was now considered to be a cost-benefit sensitive rational decision maker. All the state was supposed to do was change the variables of the “environment” and the individual would change its behavior to maximize it’s profits in this new situation. On the basis of these principles the Chicago school diffused a new political ideology. This political ideology is argued to have played a large role in the formation of reality.

the articles cited are......

Adorno, Theodor & Max Horkheimer 1944	Dialectic of Enlightenment, New York: Continuum.

Becker, Gary S. 1964	Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press. 1996	Accounting for Tastes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, James S. 1988	Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, pp. 95-120. 1990	Rights to Act, in: Contemporary Sociological Theory. 2nd edition, Edited by Calhoun, Craig, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, Indermohan Virk, 2007, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 116-124.

Lemke, Thomas 2001	''The birth of bio-politics': Michel Foucault's lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality', Economy and Society, 30:2, 190 - 207.

Olson, Mancur 1965	The Logic of Collective Action, in: Contemporary Sociological Theory. 2nd edition, Edited by Calhoun, Craig, Joseph Gerteis, James Moody, Steven Pfaff, Indermohan Virk, 2007, Malden, MA: Blackwell., pp. 111-115.

I don't know if this is of any use....Because I haven't gone back to read all the past discussions on the subject...

Orphaned references in Neoliberalism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Neoliberalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "eb": From Margaret Thatcher:  From Ronald Reagan: ;  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a definitional problem?
This is an extraordinarily controversial topic, one about which there seems to be a great deal of confusion along with the expected differences of opinion.

Part of the confusion might stem from the topic's being somewhat nebulous. That is, people seem to disagree on what the term neoliberalism refers to. Is there a settled method for dealing with that particular kind of divergence? For example, could the article incorporate a section at or near the beginning which discusses varying definitions of the term?

If it is found that there are several distinct or at least clustered ways of using the term neoliberalism, perhaps each way could be discussed, or perhaps each distinct way could be put into its own article.

If, on the other hand, the term's usage varies widely (one might almost say randomly) without being clustered into one or a few groups, maybe the whole article should focus on varying definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dratman (talk • contribs) 23:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anything wrotten in the state of Iceland ?
Is it still so rich as marketized in the article? I doubt it. --Polentario (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The many faces of neoliberalism
As far as I can see:

-Libertarians believe it's a leftist slur against pro-market politics, widely defined. They reject the term because it implies discontinuity between classical liberalism (Locke, Smith, Jefferson, etc.) and modern pro-market liberalism. This is somewhat confused because libertarians tend to like Hayek but dislike Friedman (split between Austrian and Chicago schools), which opponents often lump together as "neoliberals". Libertarians believe the term "liberal" was usurped by the Keynesians (incl. FDR) who are, in their view, not so much liberals as dirty rotten statists (outright socialists even). Libertarians are also likely to believe that the current status-quo is unacceptable because it still requires far too much state intervention. I will admit that as a libertarian this is the POV which I identify with the most.

-Marxists and other lefty radicals use the term to describe the passage from Keynesian economic policy to the more broadly pro-market policy that followed the stagflation crisis in the 70s. Maybe they see it as a reassertion of bourgeois interests (It's Always The Bourgeoisie) - as a libertarian it's obviously not my place to expound on this point of view.

-More moderate critics brandish the term to specifically criticize the failed recommendations that organizations like the World Bank have made to developing countries.

-I believe it is true that none of the people who support so-called neoliberal policies have used the term to identify themselves. I also agree with critics that that doesn't mean we can't call them that; I will however assert that this causes endless confusion, with this article's talk page as corroborating proof.

-Also, some US left-liberals who stumble upon this term are thoroughly confused and may consider it conservative propaganda (this is where we step into nonsense land, and where the article may require some clarification of the historical meanings of "liberalism" and "conservatism").

In conclusion: I believe this article would benefit from an exposition of the different definitions which different groups assign to the term "neoliberalism". I believe this is as close as we could get to NPOV, and would provide some clarification before the reader tackles the Pro vs Con section.--Nurax (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Global Spread" section is a false thesis
The examples in that section are some communist countries in the 1980s. Those countries did take policy positions akin to neoliberal practices in advanced capitalist countries. But the causes of their doing so were fundamentally different from the latter's in terms of ideological rationale. David Harvey has made clear in his book that China's resemblance to the U.S. and the U.K. is merely analytical. Therefore, the communist countries adopted "neoliberal" policies not because of a global spread of the policies from the centers of global economy, but rather as a result of their own pragmatic approaches to solving domestic economic problems. My suggestion is to change the section's caption to "Communist Approaches" and leave the original caption to societies better suited to illustrating this ideology's globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S5100e1300 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neoliberalism and financial crises, other problems
I think that the "Opposition" section gives a very narrow representation to the views which have been articulated by critics of neoliberal policies. For example, consider Stiglitz's book "Globalization and its Discontents", which is probably the most well known book criticizing neoliberalism. The focus of the book is on the financial crises that have taken place after the liberalization of financial markets in various countries, such as Russia, South Korea, and Argentina (and now the united states as well). As most of you probably know, Stiglitz is not only a Nobel prize winner, he has extensive public policy experience in these issues and also his work as an academic economist is closely related to all of this. So his views should certainly carry some weight. Moreover, these financial crises, and the broader economic catastrophes that they led to, brought very significant economic misery to millions of people all over the world and sparked quite a lot of outrage. But all of this is hardly even mentioned in the article. Why? The lack of any mention of the current financial crisis also makes the article seem pretty dated, I think the comment above by Polentario about Iceland really highlights this.

There are also some other issues which need to be mentioned in the article, but are not. What about access to things like water, education, and healthcare? A very common criticism of neoliberalism is that these things are basic human rights, and that privatization causes these rights to be denied to people. Again, there seems to be little or no mention of this in the article. But these issues are very significant, for example, they led to a social revolution in Bolivia recently.

Additionally, one of the most common criticisms of neoliberalism I have heard is that it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Why is this not brought up? I refer anyone who wishes to dispute this claim to official world bank statistics. Sub-Saharan Africa was getting poorer for a significant part of the neoliberal era.

The statement in the article "Economists remind us that free markets are theoretically efficient, not that they are considered fair by all people..." should be changed as well. It seems to imply that there is some kind of trade off between fairness and efficiency, and that a choice in favor of neoliberalism is a choice in favor of efficiency. But does anyone who has been paying attention to the financial crisis in America really believe that an unregulated market is in general an efficient means of coordinating economic activity? The criticisms of neoliberalism that I am familiar with generally assert that unregulated markets are both unfair and inefficient (sometimes absurdly inefficient). Of course, markets may be efficient "in theory", in the sense that there do exist theories which assert that markets are efficient. But plenty of other well known (and far more realistic) theories assert the opposite.

Many of the problems discussed in the opposition section of the article are about class war, exploitation, inequality, and other critiques that people have been making of capitalism since even before Marx. These problems are important and have been inflamed during the neoliberal era, but they should not be treated as the central issue, as they seem to be in this article. Later this week, I would like to edit "opposition" section to fix the problems I have mentioned above. Maybe someone could help me?

Stephen Thompson (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article can be improved by more careful articulation of the very public, very well-documented and authoritative criticism of the adverse impacts (and now the total failure) of neoliberalism. Perhaps the heading should be 'Criticism' rather than 'Opposition' (which has a pov flavour). Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher praise
This songs about UK economic sucess with "thachter neoliberal policy are not very logical. UK economic performance is rather medicore and largely influenced by dumb oil luck. 84.56.114.57 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.76.197 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"One Example"
A request was made for "one example" of the use of neoliberalism in a positive sense to justify the maintenace of the current quite balanced opening.

Paul Glastris

Intro should be neutral
Although I have misgivings about such a blanket term with so many multivariate underpinnings, the introduction should at least approach the subject dispassionately. Yet right from the start there is a quote about how the term is just a label and has no definitive features. Even if this is the case, even if the term is over-general, it would be helpful if such a critique were developed in the criticism section; this section, moreover, may benefit from division into criticism for and against the use of the term. Pfhyde (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Section "History"
The section Neoliberalism is totally fictitious. In fact the most important milestones in the history of neoliberalism are: I have many reliable sources but these are mainly in German. In English I know only this document and "Gerrit Meijer: The History of Neoliberalism: A General View and Developments in Several Countries. In: Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali. Vol. 34, 1987, S. 577–591" which is a substantial source for the German Wikipedia article. Another problem is that my English is not good enough to make big modifications in the article here. Could somebody help me? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the speech of Alexander Rüstow at the Verein für Socialpolitik 1932
 * 2) the formation of the Freiburg school and the Chicago school of economics
 * 3) the Colloque Walter Lippmann 1938
 * 4) the foundation of the Mont Pelerin Society 1947
 * 5) the initiation of the Social market economy in West-Germany 1948 as first experiment to implement the concept into practice.


 * Thats Ordoliberalism obviously and it`s an intransparent mixedup in the German Wiki already. Where is the use in having two differently named concepts when you start mixing up theyr definitions. Whats next? Should we put some Protectionism in the mix so the historic theory or politics looks better? --78.52.196.93 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Ruestow coined the term "neoliberalism" in 1932, the term was rarely used and died out. Hayek and Mises broke from the group and Ruestow's ideas became know as ordoliberalism.  Neoliberalism today refers to the policies of Reagan and Thatcher, who were inspired by Hayek and Mises, not Ruestow.  Hayek and Mises were part of the group that developed ordoliberalism, but left because of substantial differences.  There is no connection between the term neoliberalism as used today and as used by Ruestow.  Here is an article about how the term developed:  [ http://www.cis.org.au/temp/op114_neoliberalism.pdf]  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ordoliberalism is a label for the neoliberalism of the Freiburg school and Rüstow was never part of this school. So it is not correct to say, that "Ruestow's ideas became know as ordoliberalism". The neoliberalism contain several groups and the ordoliberalism is just one of them. The German Wikipedia-article show this detailed. The main problem of the English Wikipedia-article is, that it only shows the new use of the term, although the new use of the term has no stringent definition, as the source you linked impressive attest. So you can write for example that "neoliberalism" is responsible for many bad things in Japan, Australia, Scandinavia..., because the modern use of the term is only pejorative. But this makes no sense. Useful it would be to seperate the definitions: 1. neoliberalism as liberal concept (Rüstow, Freiburg school, Austrian school, Chicago school, London School) and 2. neoliberalism as pejorative term. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See: WP:Naming_conflict.  If you want to write a separate article that's fine.  The top of this article would then have a link to your article.  But when a word has more than one meaning it should be described in separate articles.  Neoliberalism as described in this article is how the term is understood today, at least in English-speaking countries.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If one or two articles are needed to explain the two different meanings of the term - this is not the deciding question. What matters is that the actual article here amalgamates both different meaning. Both meanings are relevant for an encyclopedia. But the newer definition means a political swearword as the document you linked attests. Another English document that point out that change in meaning: "From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan". But an encyclopaedical articel of a "swearword" should demonstrate that it is a "swearword". The actual article suggests that there does something truly exist that called "neolibealism" in this meaning. But truly existing does only "neoliberalism" in the former definition. The newer definition is a swearword and so you can´t write in an encyclopaedical articel that "neoliberalism" is responsible for real things that happend in Japan or Australia because a non-existing phenomenon can not be responsible for real things. There are only persons that label this things as "neoliberal". So you can delete 95 % of the actual article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Although the term neoliberal may be used as a swearword, it has entered mainstream academic literature with a specific meaning. See for example Contending liberalisms in world politics. Specifically it refers to policies pursued by politicians like Thatcher and Reagan and their successors. The fact that it had an earlier different meaning is interesting but the neoliberalism of Ruestow is a separate topic. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "policies pursued by politicians like Thatcher and Reagan" is just one example of the use of the term. This new use of the term (starting in the 1970´s in Chile) was since the beginning unspecified:
 * According to Oscar Muñoz, one of the first opposition economists to use the term in academic writing, Chilean scholars’ use of neoliberism was not a specific reference to the German neoliberals or any other theoretical revision of liberalism. Rather, it described the new “market fundamentalism” being implemented in Chile—one which differed from classical liberalism because it dispensed with political liberty, which classical liberalism (as well as the philosophy of Hayek) had always seen as inseparable from economic freedom. Characterizing Pinochet’s project as neoliberal did not imply cognitive dissonance. Moreover, Muñoz notes that in the polarized political climate of the 1970s, opposition scholars intentionally imbued the term with pejorative connotations, and using it constituted a “fairly open and blunt criticism” of the government’s radical reforms. ("Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan")
 * Another source that confirms this statement.
 * --Mr. Mustard (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apart from this and back to the topic: the section Neoliberalism does not depict the history of neoliberalism either in the meaning of Rüstow or in the meaning of the usage as swearword. The history of neoliberalism in the meaning of Rüstow I depicted at the beginning of this section. The history of neoliberalism in the meaning of the usage as swearword started in the 1970s in Chile. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the article you attached makes clear, the term neoliberalism in its modern sense is used both as a derogatory and as a neutral term. This article uses the term in a neutral way.  It describes economic reforms that began following the oil shock of 1973 that caused governments to reconsider fiscal and monetary policy and embrace the theories of Hayek and Friedman.  What other name could you give to this?  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can´t gather your statement from the article I attached at all. Further Hayek and Friedman are neoliberal in the meaning you called "rarely used and died out". Hayek took an active part in the Colloque Walter Lippmann, where Rüstow coined the term neoliberalism. Later Hayek was president of the Walter Eucken Institut, an ordoliberal think tank in the tradition of the Freiburg school. Both (Hayek and Friedman were members of the Mont Pelerin Society where many ordoliberals were members too. Till his death Friedman always underlined that the economic policy of Ludwig Erhard corresponds with his own ideas. So Hayek and Friedman are neoliberal in the meaning you wanted to make a seperate article. But big parts of the actual Wikipedia-article doesn´t refer to this meaning of neoliberalism. In the actual Wikipedia-article the term is often used unrelated to Hayek, Friedman or other neoliberal theoreticians. If you read the sections about the countries you will note that this has nothing to do with the theories of Rüstow, Eucken, Hayek and Friedman. This rather pertains the "neoliberalism" in the new meaning as vague polical slogan. "Neoliberalism" in this meaning has no theoreticians because nobody calls himself "neoliberal" in this meaning because it is just a pejorative catchphrase. The article here mixes both together. So it is necessary to separate both meanings. If therefore one or two articles are needed is secondary. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the policies pursued by Pinochet, Reagan and Thatcher were the same as those pursued by Erhard? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Why? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) In contemporary theory there is a concept called "neoliberalism" that is used to describe the policies of Reagan, Thatcher and others. Lutherans in Germany called themselves evangelisch, social conservatism in Germany means moderate conservative, limonade in Germany means pop, Dutch in Germany means German, deer in Germany means animal. But articles in English reflect the meaning as understood by English speakers. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is no question of different languages. I attached already 3 English sources that attest my statements. There is another that doesn´t differentiate between German and English but between "ordinary parlance" and "popular usage" . And this two different kinds of meaning we have in German too. There are for example politicians in Germany that want to defend the social market economy of Ludwig Erhard against the "neoliberalism" (without clarification what "neoliberalism" is reffering to). This is strange because in "ordinary parlance" neoliberalism is the foundation of the social market economy of Ludwig Erhard and Erhard called himself neoliberal.
 * And the (Wikipedia-)article mixes this two different kinds of meaning. This is the main problem of this article. So it is necessary to revise this article completely. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For everyone's information, Mirowski and Plehwe's "The Road From Mont Pelerin" is a good, thorough historical source on neo-liberlalism, and not only that, it includes a (not very flattering) account of the Wiki discussion on neo-liberalism. 24.179.166.174 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)John Emerson


 * You will have to be less mysterious. Mont Pelerin included Hayek and Mises but they had substantial differences from the liberals who developed German economic policy.  In the book, Dancing with dogma (1992), Ian Gilmour said that it was incorrect to call Margaret Thatcher a "neoconservative", that "neoliberal" would be more accurate.  At that time neither word was used in academic literature.  When people today use the term "neoliberal" they are not referring to Mont Pelerin but rather Reagan-Thatcher economic policies.  In fact the economic policies they followed were inconsistent and the main influence of Hayek was as a philosopher rather than economist.  The term neoliberalism btw is just a combination of the prefix neo with the noun liberal.  Neo just means new.  You could say that social liberals were neoliberals because they called themselves the new liberals.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexander Rüstow, Wilhelm Röpke, Walter Eucken, Ludwig Erhard, Alfred Müller-Armack and other persons who developed German economic policy, were all members of the Mont Pelerin Society. There had been some differences between Rüstow and Mises, but Hayek had a good relationship to the most German neoliberals and was later president of the Walter Eucken Institut. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to understand what neoliberalism is, they should read Mirowski and Plehwe's book. Anyone who does not want to understand what neoliberalism is should not read Mirowski and Plehwe's book. That's all I was saying. The two authors comment on the problems of definition of the term and go far toward solving them. That's all I was saying. People here seem to be going around in circles. The book does establish that the term is a valid scholarly term, and explains the fact that neoliberals seldom use the term themselves by the neoliberal's desire to avoid the "neo" and claim to be just plain liberals, even though they differed widely from classical liberals on many important points.

John Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.166.174 (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Neoliberal vs. neoclassical?
What is the difference between neoliberal and neoclassical economics? --JHP (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is a big different. Neoclassical economics = Lausanne School and the Cambridge School at the end of the 19th century. Neoliberalism = Freiburg school and Chicago school of economics in the middle of the 20th century. For example, the neoliberal Friedrich Hayek was a famous critic of the neoclassical General equilibrium theory. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * However sometimes people (incorrectly) use neoclassical when they mean neoliberal. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And sometimes people (incorrectly) use neoliberal when they mean neoclassical or Thatcherism or Reaganomics. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)