Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 5

Neutral POV
This article is fairly biased against neoliberalism. As a school of thought that is supported by the majority of mainstream economists, it at least warrants equal amounts of support and criticism. In this article, criticism and examples of adverse effects in a small sample of countries (comprised almost exclusively of Latin American countries) are abundant and the benefits of market liberalization are ignored.

I believe this violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. 203.110.235.129 (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be contextual. neo-liberalism is mostly a term, not a philosophy. the philosophy has better - accepted - names. --MeUser42 (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that neoliberalism is not a precise term. Since the very beginning in the 1930s the was a genrell agreement between "neoliberal" thinkers to support free trade etc. but there was also disagreement on importent subjects right from the start.
 * Except for some german economists in the 1930s - 1960s no economist declared himself to be neoliberal. Friedman never used the term neoliberalism, Hayek rejected it. As MeUser42 wrote: the economic philosophy has better - accepted - names (economic liberalism, libertarianism etc.).
 * And the academic/non academic use of the term is almost entirely negative (since the 1970s). I do not think that balancing huge amounts of crticism and little support by a pick and choose tactic to create an 50:50 outcame makes the article neutral. But I think that we should be carefull to work with academic literature that really covers the topic neoliberalism. --Pass3456 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Check out a Google Scholar search for 'neoliberalism'. groupuscule (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So... this article is really confusing right now. And the section on 'corrupted neoliberalism' doesn't make any sense to me... it's written from the perspective of thinking that neoliberalism 'should' be one thing, and that real life phenomena widely attributed to neoliberalism aren't neoliberalism, because they're (somehow) not in line with the think that it 'should' be. I don't think this is tenably encyclopedic. I'm really frustrated with the general trend of the changes that have been made. I feel like they represent the perspective of a theoretical economics, with no concessions made to the real world economics that the term neoliberalism refers to. I mean, there's my comment about Scholar, above, but you can even listen to the radio: I heard about four people use the term 'neoliberal' used to refer to the corporate education agenda. Do people feel like that's a valid use? Because it's clearly the popular use right now, by a landslide. Not sure how to proceed immediately, but I'[m really interested to find out how others feel. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably could be helpful to summarize good academic elaborated sources and then rewrite the article to better reflect those.--Pass3456 (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Germany
I don´t see any good reason for the deletion of text based on reliable sources. --Pass3456 (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don´t see how NPOV might require to delete text based on 'Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse, Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan' & other sources. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentences "Alexander Rüstow had coined the label “neoliberalism” at the Colloque Walter Lippmann. But whereas contemporary scholars often equate neoliberalism with market fundamentalism, the ordoliberal Freiburg School was rather moderate and pragmatic." belongs to the section Neoliberalism. The remnant of Boas/Gans-Morse can stay in the article, if you want. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted the sentence ""Alexander Rüstow had coined the label “neoliberalism” at the Colloque Walter Lippmann.".
 * "But whereas contemporary scholars often equate neoliberalism with market fundamentalism, the ordoliberal Freiburg School was rather moderate and pragmatic." belongs to Neoliberalism since Freiburg School is just a small part of neoliberalism.
 * If text based on 'Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse, Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan' & other sources can stay in the article then stop deleting it.--Pass3456 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think that text based on sources can stay in the article so why you delete the following sentences?
 * In West Germany neoliberal ideas were first implemented. The neoliberal economists around Ludwig Erhard could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War.[16]
 * Erhard was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and in constant contact with other neoliberals. He pointed out that he is commonly classified as neoliberal and that he accepts this classification.[17]
 * Without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and others his own contribution to the foundation of the social market economy would not have been possible.[18]
 * Although Erhard had always emphasized that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so, in political practice the German welfare state which had been established under Otto von Bismarck, became increasingly costly. Rüstow who coined the label “neoliberalism” at the Colloque Walter Lippmann criticized that development tendency and pressed for a more restrictive social policy.[16]
 * Ludwig von Mises stated despite some controversy at the Mont Pelerin Society that Erhard and Müller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US”.[20] --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete but specify them:
 * Neoliberal or more specific ordoliberal economists such as Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow developed theories that contributed to the implementation of the social market economy in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack.
 * Erhard had stated that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so. He had hoped that growing prosperity would enable the population to manage much of their social security by self-reliance and end the necessity for a widespread welfare state. But despite some efforts to balance income distribution by a progressive income tax and a wealth tax the trend towards a very unequal distribution of income and assets was obvious. Although average contributions to the public old age insurance were quite small it remained by far the most important old age income source for a majority of the German population. Therefore the 1950s witnessed what has been called a ″reluctant expansion of the welfare state″. To end widespread poverty among the elderly the pension reform of 1957 brought a significant extension of the German welfare state which already had been established under Otto von Bismarck. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite some controversy at the Mont Pelerin Society Ludwig von Mises wrote: "I have no illusions about the true character of the politics and politicians of the social market economy. [Erhard´s teacher Franz Oppenheimer] taught more or less the New Frontier line of Harvard consultants (Schlesinger, Galbraith, etc.)" p. 1008. He stated that Erhard and Müller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US” --Pass3456 (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course you deleted important informations. And a long text passage you added instead is not verified by the source you cited. You know this because you did the same at the German wikipedia. So I can't understand why you added again this text which is not verified. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to move on:
 * which text passage do you think is not verified by which source?
 * which important information do you think is left out? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You added the following sentences to the article:
 * In contrast to Hayek's theory of group selection, ordoliberals believed in a rational and moral setting of rules by government. An example is Eucken's criticism of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for supporting laissez-faire policy to the point of not recognizing the importance of market regulation. The sharpest contrast occurred when Hayek denied the idea of social justice.
 * In the source you cited you con read, that Eucken wrote this "criticism" in a private letter to Hayek because Hayek asked him to read the manuscript of his book. I can't see any relevance of this private notice for the section "Neoliberalism in Germany". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what you can see. Let us stick to what authors like Walter Oswalt present as relevant. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mr Mustard: Why do you delete those specifications and even more text like
 * "In Germany, neoliberalism at first was synonymous with both ordoliberalism and Social Market Economy. But over time the original term neoliberalism gradually disappeared since Social Market Economy was a much more positive term and fitted better into the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) mentality of the 1950s and 1960s."
 * "Walter Eucken claimed in 1952 that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time”".
 * Do you really think that " Hayek did not like the expression “social market economy” but he noticed in 1976 that some of his friends in Germany had succeeded in implementing the sort of social order for which he was pleading by using it." is more precise than "Hayek stated that the “social market economy” is not a market economy but he claimed in 1976 that Germany had succeeded in implementing the free social order for which he pleaded. In Hayek`s view the social market economy`s aiming for both a market economy and social justice was a muddle of inconsistent aims. In contrast to Hayek's theory of group selection, ordoliberals believed in a rational and moral setting of rules by government. An example is Eucken's criticism of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for supporting laissez-faire policy to the point of not recognizing the importance of market regulation. The sharpest contrast occurred when Hayek denied the idea of social justice"? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * p.s. I asked for a third opinion. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody can read and understand this discussion. So let's go step by step:

--Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Why did you delete
 * "In West Germany neoliberal ideas were first implemented. The neoliberal economists around Ludwig Erhard could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War.[16]
 * Because this is more precise: "Neoliberal or more specific ordoliberal economists such as Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow developed theories that contributed to the implementation of the social market economy in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack." --Pass3456 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that this is more precise? This are not the same informations and you deleted also the sentence "Without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and others his own contribution to the foundation of the social market economy would not have been possible." Both sentences together includes more information than your sentence. So you deleted informations. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets start from the beginning and make a joint text: --Pass3456 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In West Germany “neoliberal” ideas were first implemented. Neoliberal or more specific ordoliberal economists such as Walter Eucken, and Alexander Rüstow developed theories that contributed to the implementation of the social market economy in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack which contributed to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War Whereas contemporary scholars often equate neoliberalism with market fundamentalism, the ordoliberal Freiburg School was rather moderate and pragmatic. The German neoliberals accepted the classical liberal notion that competition drives economic prosperity, but they argued that a laissez-faire state policy stifles competition as the strong devour the weak since monopolies and cartels could pose a threat to freedom of competition. They supported the creation of a well-developed legal system and capable regulatory apparatus. While still opposed to full-scale Keynesian employment policies or an extensive welfare state German neoliberals’ theory was marked by their willingness to place humanistic and social values on par with economic efficiency. Alfred Müller-Armack coined the phrase “social market economy” to emphasize the egalitarian and humanistic bent of the idea. Walter Eucken claimed in 1952 that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time”..


 * This is a good beginning. But in your proposal is missing Friedrich Hayek, whom Erhard named explicitly as one of the masterminds of the social market economy in Germany . And as you know from German wikipedia, there are sources which contradicts that Walter Eucken claimed that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time”. Do you really want to discus this again? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Relating to Hayek: Your source (Oliver Marc Hartwich,Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword, Centre for Independent Studies, 2009, ISBN 1-86432-185-7, p. 22) does not mention Hayek (neither different sources ). The authors Plehwe/Mirowski mention some kind words from Ludwig Erhard in an 80s birthday speech but we don´t know how to interpret them. Plehwe/Mirowski seem to be sceptical about a theoretical influence: "This may also explain Erhard´s reservation about pure theory as referenced by Wünsche. Not in the least due to Erhard´s increasing political power in postwar germany, Erhard occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply."
 * I don´t know any sources which deny that Walter Eucken claimed that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time” (you probably noticed the quotation marks). --Pass3456 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Erhard named explicitly "Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, F. A. von Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack" as the masterminds of the social market economy . I think that Ludwig Erhard knows better than anybody else who influenced him to found the social market economy. Don't you think so? And of course you know sources which deny that Walter Eucken claimed that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time”. For example . We debated this many times at the German wikipedia. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic 1: sounds a lot like OR.
 * Topic 2: can´t recall a discussion like that. By the way google books doesn´t display that page at the moment. Could you cite the one or two sentences you refer to (as I did above)? --Pass3456 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The source google books doesn´t display for you at the moment illustrates that Eucken noted that most people think that “social security and social justice are the greatest concerns of our time” but in his opinion social justice was the primary problem of the German Empire (1871 to 1918), social security was the primary problem of the Weimar Republic (1919 to 1933) and individual liberty was the primary problem of his time (Nazi Germany since 1933). We discussed this many times in the German wikipedia and I really can't belive that you don't remember this. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Topic 2: why do you think that this contradicts the other source?
 * What about topic 1? --Pass3456 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Topic 1: Erhard named explicitly "Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, F. A. von Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack" as the masterminds of the social market economy so we should cite them all and not only Eucken, Rüstow and Müller-Armack.
 * Topic 2: I think that this contradicts the other source, because this source state, that Eucken considered individual liberty as the greatest concern of his time. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I left topic 1 and left out topic 2 (for the moment). What exactly is your argument to delete 4.000 byte of sourced text? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My argument is that you should bide the end of the discussion instead of making edit war. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 as discussed I added that without deleting something first hand. Nevertheless there are some things left to discuss:
 * Does the following sentence contain any new information? "Erhard was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and in constant contact with other neoliberals. He pointed out that he is commonly classified as neoliberal and that he accepts this classification." --Pass3456 (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 3 end of the discussion: no argument against that yet, do you whant to add anything? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Germany 2
@Mr Mustard: No argument yet against the additional information you deleted. Do you whant to add anything? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please let's continue to discus all points step by step as agreed yesterday and don't run one's head against a wall. Step by step, all right? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amuse me and make a first step. Note: we are taking about this additional information. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

✅--Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. step
 * In West Germany neoliberal ideas were first implemented. The neoliberal economists around Ludwig Erhard (particular Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack) could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War.
 * Is there any argument? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Argument? This is my proposal and I thought this is already consensus--Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You deleted 4.000 byte of text based on several sources and now you whant to discuss only your text proposal that is based on zero sources? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you added two sources. But your text is not covered by those sources. Hartwich says: "It was in West Germany where ‘neoliberal’ ideas were first implemented. The neoliberal economists around Erhard, Rüstow, Eucken, and Müller-Armack could draw on the theories they had developed in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germany’s reconstruction after the War." --Pass3456 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why I added two sources. Ptak states that Erhard named Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, F. A. von Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack whom assisted him in founding the social market economy. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source [] is not Ptak but Plehwe/Mirowski and the following text would fit this source: On the occasion of Böhm´s eightieth birthday Erhard wrote that his own contribution would not have been possible without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and many others who joined him in thinking and debating. Nevertheless Erhard had reservations about pure economic theory and occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply. Furthermore historians and economists, among them Otto Schlecht and Hans-Rudolf Peters who worked at the Department of Commerce in the 1950s and 1960s, noted that the concept of the Social Market Economny was not developed by Ludwig Erhard but by his adviser Müller-Armack.    Aims and objectives were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory.
 * --Pass3456 (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A third opinion. @To Mr. Mustard: I have no problem including the material from both sources.  However, there needs to be two separate sentences to summarize the material from the two separate sources.JDefauw (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * I don't understand what you want to say. The central point to say is, that it was in West Germany where ‘neoliberal’ ideas were first implemented. After we should name the neoliberal economists that had developed the theories in the 1930s and 1940s and contribute to West Germany’s reconstruction after the War. Do you agree? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The central point is to accurately summarize the sources. Citations are not meant as a fig leaf for what really is original research. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then make a suggestion. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * -> It was in West Germany where ‘neoliberal’ ideas were first implemented. Neoliberal economists such as Walter Eucken, and Alexander Rüstow developed theories that contributed to the implementation of the social market economy in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack which contributed to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War.
 * ->On the occasion of Böhm´s eightieth birthday Erhard wrote that his own contribution would not have been possible without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and many others who joined him in thinking and debating. Nevertheless Erhard had reservations about pure economic theory and occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply. Anyway the concept of the Social Market Economny was not developed by Ludwig Erhard but by his adviser Müller-Armack. Aims and objectives were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory.


 * --Pass3456 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much text for little information. Don't you think so? The theme is "neoliberalism in Germany". --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you admit that it´s accurate. The theme of "neoliberalism in Germany" is when and to which extend neoliberal theory was implemented. Therefore the first sentence alone would be missleading. --Pass3456 (talk) 06:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

________________

In West Germany “neoliberal” ideas were first implemented. Neoliberal or more specific ordoliberal economists such as Walter Eucken, and Alexander Rüstow developed theories that contributed to the implementation of the social market economy in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack which contributed to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War Whereas contemporary scholars often equate neoliberalism with market fundamentalism, the ordoliberal Freiburg School was rather moderate and pragmatic. The German neoliberals accepted the classical liberal notion that competition drives economic prosperity, but they argued that a laissez-faire state policy stifles competition as the strong devour the weak since monopolies and cartels could pose a threat to freedom of competition. They supported the creation of a well-developed legal system and capable regulatory apparatus. While still opposed to full-scale Keynesian employment policies or an extensive welfare state German neoliberals’ theory was marked by their willingness to place humanistic and social values on par with economic efficiency. Alfred Müller-Armack coined the phrase “social market economy” to emphasize the egalitarian and humanistic bent of the idea. .

On the occasion of Böhm´s eightieth birthday Erhard wrote that his own contribution would not have been possible without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and many others who joined him in thinking and debating. Nevertheless Erhard had reservations about pure economic theory and occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply. Furthermore historians and economists, among them Otto Schlecht and Hans-Rudolf Peters who worked at the Department of Commerce in the 1950s and 1960s, noted that the concept of the Social Market Economny was not developed by Ludwig Erhard but by his adviser Müller-Armack. Aims and objectives were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory.

Hayek stated that the “social market economy” is not a market economy but he claimed in 1976 that Germany had succeeded in implementing the free social order for which he pleaded. In Hayek`s view the social market economy`s aiming for both a market economy and social justice was a muddle of inconsistent aims. In contrast to Hayek's theory of group selection, ordoliberals believed in a rational and moral setting of rules by government. An example is Eucken's criticism of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for supporting laissez-faire policy to the point of not recognizing the importance of market regulation. The sharpest contrast occurred when Hayek denied the idea of social justice. Ludwig von Mises stated despite some controversy at the Mont Pelerin Society that Erhard and Müller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US”. He also said that: “I have no illusions about the true character of the politics and politicians of the social market economy.” Erhard´s teacher Franz Oppenheimer “taught more or less the New Frontier line of” President Kennedy's “Harvard consultants (Schlesinger, Galbraith, etc.)”

Erhard had stated that the market was inherently social and did not need to be made so. He had hoped that growing prosperity would enable the population to manage much of their social security by self-reliance and end the necessity for a widespread welfare state. But despite some efforts to balance income distribution by a progressive income tax and a wealth tax the trend towards a very unequal distribution of income and assets was obvious. Although average contributions to the public old age insurance were quite small it remained by far the most important old age income source for a majority of the German population. Therefore, despite liberal rhetoric, the 1950s witnessed what has been called a ″reluctant expansion of the welfare state″. To end widespread poverty among the elderly the pension reform of 1957 brought a significant extension of the German welfare state which already had been established under Otto von Bismarck. Rüstow criticized that development tendency and pressed for a more restrictive social policy.

Erhard was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society and in constant contact with other neoliberals. He pointed out that he is commonly classified as neoliberal and that he accepts this classification.


 * @Gigs: Thank you, the question is in deed whether the use of two citations to construct one claim is proper or whether it falls under rules against improper synthesis.
 * In your example you pick a key assertion that Hayek was neoliberal and an influence in the creation of what became known as neoliberalism. This is not really controversial.
 * But in this case the question is
 * a) to which extend the german Social Market Economy was influenced by economic theory and
 * b) which neoliberal thinkers made important contributions to the concept of the Social Market Economy.


 * For a) there are obviously constraints to which extend neoliberal theory was influential to the political project Social Market Economy. The point is to stress that "Aims and objectives of the Social Market Economy were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory."
 * For b) The term "neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term associated with radical economic reforms" In the 1950s and 1960s Hayek was not regarded as neoliberal because he was more fundamentalistic than the Freiburg School economics that contributed to the Theory of the Social Market Economy: "Nonetheless, Erhard referred to his overall development model as a social market economy, with the term neoliberalism reserved for the philosophy that inspired it. While present-day scholarship often identifies Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as the fathers of neoliberalism, most scholars of the period understood the term as referring to the German experience and its principal economic theorists. In academic articles and book reviews published in the 1950s and 1960s, neoliberalism was most often associated with Germany or specifically with the Freiberg School and such economists as Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow, and Müller-Armack ... Although Hayek enjoyed important intellectual ties to the neoliberals, serving as an editorial board member and frequent contributor to their journal Ordo, he much more vigorously opposed state intervention in the economy, even with respect to antimonopoly legislation. Given his more fundamentalist stance, Hayek’s name was only occasionally mentioned in conjunction with neoliberalism during this period, and Friedman’s essentially never appeared."
 * In german wikipedia we had discussed the same point. There are some economic thinkers that are repetatly pointed out to have made important contributions to the theory of the Social Market Economy. We came to the conclusion to focus on those economists that many sources regard as influential:


 * Summary: the question is not that much wether this is a case of WP:SYNTHESIS but if the key assertion a) and b) are relevant for the article or should be left out. Please feel free to respond if you like. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to make a strong decision one way or another. You can mention Hayek and Miksch in the same context you have presented it here, noting the shift in perception over time.  Regarding a), we can't unravel the evolution of ideas that developed in such an ecosystem.   Secondary sources that comment regarding the influence of one idea on another are on shaky ground and are likely speculating.   We can cite such speculation but we should not present it as fact, especially if it is not well accepted in other sources.  Gigs (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that Ludwig Erhard was Minister of Economics (1949-1963) and Chancellor (1963-1966) of West Germany. It is a fact that Erhard identified himself as ordoliberal that is in German a synonym for neoliberal. It is a fact that Erhard is commonly classified as neoliberal in secondary sources and it is a fact that Erhard accepted this classification. It is a fact that Erhard explicitly named Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack as contributors of his own achievement. It is a fact that Leonhard Miksch of the Freiburg school was a personal assistant of Erhard. It is a fact that all this persons were members of the Mont Pelerin Society and that all were regularly labeled as neoliberals. All this are indisputable significant informations for the section "Germany" in the article "Neoliberalism".

It is true that Pass3456 could find some secondary sources that don't list Hayek as mastermind of the social market economy and Pass3456 already argued at the German wikipedia that therefore Hayek could not be cited as theoretician of the social market economy. But I could find many secondary sources that list him. Some of these sources even distinguish his consideration. So I can't comprehend why Hayek should not not be cited in the section "Germany". Otherwise Pass3456 cited Hayek in section "Chile".

I can't understand why we have to discuss about this endless. Pass3456 wants to inhibit the illustration of relevant facts but on the other hand he wants to integrate a lot of opinions of secondary writers to the article and these opinions are extremely onesided and unbalanced. To recognize the POV of Pass3456 you only have to read the sections Neoliberalism and Neoliberalism which are written by him. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The sections Neoliberalism and Neoliberalism are an accurate summary of the given scientific sources. That´s my POV, to present academic knowledge. What is your POV?
 * I have no problem with presenting Erhards 80th birthday courtesy about the many economists that helped by thinking or debating with him. But iz is just original research to draw a conclusion that most scientific authors don´t share.
 * I think we can both agree to Gigs third opinion. Following his advice I made some corrections:


 * At the end of the 1940s the Social Market Economy was implemented in West Germany by economics minister Ludwig Erhard and his adviser Alfred Müller-Armack. It contributed to West Germany’s reconstruction after the Second World War. Erhard referred to the economic model as Social Market Economy, with the term neoliberalism reserved for the philosophy that inspired it. But while present-day scholars often identified Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as the fathers of neoliberalism, in the 1950s and 1960s most scholars understood the term as referring to the Social Market Economy and its principal economic theorists, specifically with the Freiberg School and such economists as Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke, Rüstow, and Alfred Müller-Armack. Although Hayek enjoyed important intellectual ties to the neoliberals, he much more vigorously opposed state intervention in the economy. Given his more fundamentalist stance, Hayek’s name was only occasionally mentioned in conjunction with neoliberalism during this period and Friedman’s essentially never appeared. On the occasion of Böhm´s eightieth birthday Erhard wrote that his own contribution would not have been possible without Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, Wilhelm Röpke, Alexander Rüstow, Friedrich Hayek, Alfred Müller-Armack and many others who joined him in thinking and debating. Nevertheless Erhard had reservations about pure economic theory and occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply. It was Erhard´s adviser Müller-Armack who developed the concept of the Social Market Economny. Aims and objectives were developed step by step in response to concrete political developments, rather than according to logical extrapolations and derivations from ordoliberal theory.


 * You will admit that this is all true, especially that it is exactly what you can read in the cited sources. If you have sources that explicitely stress Hayek as some kind of "mastermind" of the Social Market Economy or stress an important contribution Hayek may have done we certainly could expand that text (probably balanced by different oppinions). --Pass3456 (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we really don't need "different opinions" about the contribution of Hayek. It is a fact, that Erhard, the "father of social market economy", named Hayek as an important contributor of the foundation of social market economy. There are some secondary sources that don't list Hayek as contributor, but there are many that do. I know that you really hate Hayek and that you can't accept that he was an important contributor of the foundation of social market economy. But it is a fact, that Erhard considered him as such a contributor and Erhard matters and not you. We don't need another disaster like at the article Ordoliberalism. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I really don´t like are fanboys writing fiction. The Erhard sentence is in there. If you have more we can add that. But if you go on making own assumptions instead of working with scientific sources the discussion gets useless. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)--

Okay, here is my further recommendation:
 * Neoliberal ideas were first implemented in West Germany. Most significant incitements to the realisation of the market econmy in West Germany after second world war were provided by Walter Eucken and Friedrich Hayek from the Freiburg School. The conception of the "social market economy" from Alfred Müller-Armack is broadly congruent with the ordoliberal model of the free market. Also Müller-Armack based himeself substantially on Walter Eucken and Friedrich Hayek, thus on the neoliberalism of the Austrian school and the ordoliberalsm, a variant of neoliberalism.

--Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It´s a pitty. You repeatedly provide nothing more than a Theatre of the Absurd just to wreck the discussion. You obviously believe that this strategy helps you to preserve your POV version. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you explain, why the actual version in the article is POV? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are really interested in the answer ;-) please read again the above posts. They might give you some hints. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

German Neoliberals and welfare state
The article says that: "Erhard had hoped that growing prosperity would enable the population to manage much of their social security by self-reliance and end the necessity for a widespread welfare state. (Werner Abelshauser, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte seit 1945, C.H.Beck, 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-510946, p. 192) ... in political practice the German welfare state which had been established under Otto von Bismarck, became increasingly costly." This is unnecessarily vague. Additionally "increasingly costly" is an violation of Prefer nonjudgmental language since it only refers to one effect of the expansion of the german welfare state. The given source is actually more precise: --Pass3456 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Erhard had hoped that growing prosperity would enable the population to manage much of their social security by self-reliance and end the necessity for a widespread welfare state. By the name of Volkskapitalismus there were some efforts to foster private savings. But although average contributions to the public old age insurance were quite small it remained by far the most important old age income source for a majority of the German population. Therefore, despite liberal rhetoric, the 1950s witnessed what has been called a ″reluctant expansion of the welfare state″. To end widespread poverty among the elderly the pension reform of 1957 brought a significant extension of the German welfare state which already had been established under Otto von Bismarck. (Werner Abelshauser, Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte seit 1945, C.H.Beck, 2011, ISBN 978-3-406-510946, p. 192) (similar sources in Englisch: p. 165, p. 59)

Mises about German Neoliberals
The article says that: "Ludwig von Mises stated ... that Erhard and Müller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US”." This is an interpretation of the author Ralf Ptak. Different sources tell us a different story, we need to Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. Therefore I will add the interpretation of Guido Jorg Hulsmann: --Pass3456 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

According to different research Mises believed that the Ordoliberals were hardly better than socialists. As an answer to Hans Hellwigs complaints about the interventionist excesses of the Erhard ministry and the Ordoliberals Mises wrote that: “I have no illusions about the true character of the politics and politicians of the social market economy.” Erhard´s teacher Franz Oppenheimer “taught more or less the New Frontier line of” President Kennedy´s “Harvard consultants (Schlesinger, Galbraith, etc.)”

Guido Jorg Hulsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism, ISBN 978-1933550183, p. 1007-8


 * No, this is absolultly no "interpretation of the author Ralf Ptak" like you know, because we have discussed this already at the German Wikipedia. Mises wrote this in his book Im Namen des Staates . The phrasing "Ludwig von Mises stated despite some controversy at the Mont Pelerin Society that Erhard and Müller-Armack accomplished a great act of liberalism to restore the German economy and called this “a lesson for the US”." is neutral and balanced. The addition "According to different research, however, Mises believed that the Ordoliberals were hardly better than socialists. As an answer to Hans Hellwigs complaints about the interventionist excesses of the Erhard ministry and the Ordoliberals, Mises wrote, “I have no illusions about the true character of the politics and politicians of the social market economy.” According to Mises, Erhard´s teacher, Franz Oppenheimer “taught more or less the New Frontier line of” President Kennedy´s “Harvard consultants (Schlesinger, Galbraith, etc.)”" is not neutral and not balanced, because this phrasing shows just one side, the controversies between Mises and German neoliberals. And it is no "different research" because Guido Jorg Hulsmann comes to the same result like Ptak that there were differnces but also commonalities. But I don't want to discuss this again endless. Thus I delete this completely. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mises wrote both quotes. Different quotes, different authors, different interpretations = NPOV. Your version of one quote, one author, one interpretation is only POV with an N.
 * I open a third opinion. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are not yet any other third opinions, I will give my opinion. Last week we appeared to have three alternatives.


 * 1) Leave the paragraph unchanged.
 * 2) Remove from the article all of the statements concerning Mises.
 * 3) Include only the first quote of Mises, and remove the 2nd and 3rd quote.

I think that we can immediately eliminate 3) as a viable option. We all agree that there are commonalities and differences between Mises and the ordoliberals.  It is only logical that we include quotes that illustrate both the commonalities (Erhard accomplished a great act of liberalism) and the differences (Erhard's teacher taught the new frontier line of Kennedy's consultants).

The question of whether the material is relevant to the section depends on the definition of neoliberalism that this article accepts. At the risk of oversimplifying, the article presently states that there have been two definitions of neoliberalism.


 * 1)1950's definition--Neoliberalism is moderate conservatism.
 * 2)Present day definition--Neoliberalism is extremely-limited-government conservatism commonly influenced by the Chicago and Austrian schools of thought.

Update: After quickly looking at the Wikipedia article on Conservatism in Germany, I realize that the word "conservative" may have a very different meaning in Germany than in America. If other contributors live in Germany, that could cause some confusion. Please see Conservatism in America.

If we only accept the 1950's definition as valid, then Mises was not a "true neoliberal", and his opinion about "true neoliberalism" is not relevant to this section. However, this article seems to regard Neoliberalism as a broad and imprecise term that can have both defintions stated above. Consequently, Mises and the ordoliberals represent somewhat different types of neoliberalism, and it is relevant to say something somewhere in the article about the commonalities and differences.

If leaving the paragraph unchanged is acceptable to all of the contributors, then we can close this discussion and move on to the dispute below (about Eucken and social justice, etc.)JDefauw (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * But seriously, do you really think that a citation of Mises about Erhard and Müller-Armack, published in a book, has the same relevance for the article "Neoliberalism" like a citation of Mises about Erhard's teacher, written in a private letter? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the source that cites the letter by Mises to Hans Hellwig. The excerpt from Hulsmann's book was posted at Mises.org by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.


 * Excerpt from Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism by Guido Jorg Hulsmann


 * Guido Jorg Hulsmann does make it very clear that Mises was very dissatisfied with the ordoliberals. If this letter by Mises were the only evidence Hulsmann gave of the hostility between Mises and the ordoliberals, then we would be giving that letter undue weight by quoting it in this article.  Hulsmann says that this hostility was ongoing, and that Mises was reluctant to state his opinions about the ordoliberals publicly.  The purpose of the quotation from Mises' letter is to give the reader of the article one example of the conflict within the Mont Perlin Society between the classical liberals and the neoliberals.  Even if we remove the quote from the article, we would still have to give a summary of what Hulsmann tells about that conflict in his book.JDefauw (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * I really can't belive that we are discussing seriously if a citation of Mises about Erhard's teacher, written in a private letter, is relevant to this article. I have no problem to delete both quotations from Mises. But I really can't recognize any relevance of this letter. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JDefauw put it right. @Mr Mustard: if you read it again you might cope with the challenge to understand Guido Jorg Hulsmann. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Mises about German Neoliberals 2
I still don't understand why a quotation from a letter by Mises to Hans Hellwig is not relevant to the article. It is stated in the Wikipedia article on relevance: "On Wikipedia, relevance is simply whether a fact (in an article) is useful to the reader and is in the right article". Therefore, too determine whether the letter by Mises is relevant to the article, we need to answer 4 questions. The last question is the one we are discussing presently.

Question 1: Is the quotation from the letter useful to the reader?

My response: Yes, as long as it has not been given undue weight.

Question 2: Has the quotation from the letter been given undue weight?

My response: No. The entire excerpt from the book by Hulsmann that I spoke about in my previous comments (see above) is about the conflict within the Mont Pelerin Society between the Austrian school neoliberals on the one hand and the ordoliberals on the other. (I am here using the term "neoliberal" in the same broad sense in which it is used in the lede of the article, see question 3.)

Question 3: Is the quotation from the letter in the right article?

My response: Yes. After stating in the lede of the article that neoliberalism "is commonly informed by neoclassical or Austrian economics", we would be doing the reader of the article a great disservice if we did not later speak about and even emphasize the serious differences between the Austrian school economists and the ordoliberals.

Question 4: Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that we are not allowed to use quotations from private correspondence, even when they appear in secondary reliable sources?

My response: I am not aware of a policy which states that. I do not know why there would be a policy which states that. Quotations from private correspondence can be as useful to the reader of the article and can tell the reader as much about what well-known people from the past believed as quotations from their public statements.

If anyone who is reading this discussion knows of a policy of Wikipedia that either states or even implies that we cannot use quotations from private correspondence (or can only use them in certain cases), I would be most grateful if that person would let us know about the policy. If Wikipedia has no policy that states that, then it would not be right to allow ourselves to arbitrarily create a new policy. If we create an unnecessary rule for this article, we may end up having to apply that rule to other articles as wellJDefauw (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Before or after 1945?
One of the paragraph's under the sub-heading "Germany" states, "In Walter Eucken's view social justice was the primary problem of the German Empire (1871 to 1918), social security was the primary problem of the Weimar Republic (1919 to 1933) and individual liberty was the primary problem of his time (Nazi Germany since 1933)." Did he make that statement before or after 1945? The words in parenthesis "Nazi Germany since 1933" will cause some readers to believe (including myself) that he made this statement when Germany was under the Nazis. This needs to be clarified.JDefauw (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
 * The statement is from his book Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik published in 1952 (posthumous). --Pass3456 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Walter Eucken told this during his lecture series This Unsuccessful Age (published in 1952) at the London School of Economics in 1950. But he meant not only the time till 1945 (Nazi Germany) but the time since 1933. But the crucial question is why the whole issue should be relevant to this article. I can't detect any relevance. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm grateful for your clarification.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relevant for the description of german neoliberalism according to Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse. See.
 * I open a third opinion. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotation of Ralf Ptak
It is clear to me that at some time in the future, we will have to incorporate into the article the statement of Ralf Ptak that Erhard "occasionally rejected the advice of model theorists sharply". The reader of the article needs to know that in order to have the entire picture. We will discuss this question after the two open disputes have been settled (concerning Mises opinion about German neoliberals and Eucken's beliefs about social justice, social security, and individual liberty). Since a third person has not yet taken part in those two disputes, they are still eligible to receive an entirely objective third opinion.JDefauw (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw


 * The quotation of Ralf Ptak you are referring to is this footnote. The footnote is referring to this issue. This issue can be depicted neutral. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (I'm glad that this book is written in English).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes JDefauw made. Mr. Mustard seems to agree too. What do we wait for? --Pass3456 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously I don't agree. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't have any third opinions by Monday, I will hopefully have more time to discuss these matters early next week.JDefauw (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Paleoliberals
In the section on terminology, the term "paleoliberal" is used to describe laissez-faire liberals like Mises and Hayek. The Wikipedia article on paleoliberalism says that the term was indeed used by Rustow in that sense. The article also appears to say that this is not the sense in which the word is normally used. Sometimes it is even used as a label for proponents of American liberalism (which is the opposite of the liberalism of Mises and Hayek) and even socialism or social libertarianism. If Boas and Gans-Morse used the term "paleoliberal", clearly the term is too ambiguous to be used in this article. We will need to think of a different way to word that sentence.JDefauw (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
 * Regarding paleoliberalism: there seem to be some concerns about original research. Is it really also associated with unreconstructed modern liberalism? --Pass3456 (talk) 06:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very probable that, as the article says, the meaning of "paleoliberal" depends on the meaning of "liberal", and in America the meaning of the term "liberal" today is very different from its meaning in early 20th century Europe. As a result, I believe that using the term "paleoliberal" in the article without any explanation will be confusing to some American readers.  Most Americans are not aware that the term "liberal" use to refer to a laissez-faire economic philosophy, as opposed to the present day, when it refers to a political philosophy that is the opposite of laissez-faire liberalism.


 * We can keep the term "paleoliberal" in the article if we qualify it by saying "the laissez-faire teachings of the "paleoliberals".JDefauw (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw
 * Good idea! --Pass3456 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Justification of my copy edit of the lead section.
The Wikipedia article on lead sections states: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The reason this is so important is that many readers will only read the lead section of the article. This article especially needs an adequate lead section because it is so long. I don't think that most readers of this article will read it from start to finish. Instead, they will likely browse the table of contents (and it's also likely that many readers of Wikipedia will not read a section that has the title "Terminology".)

I believe the lead section we are proposing now is closer to being able to stand on its own as a concise version of the article than the lead section that was in the article last week. If someone last week had read only the lead section, that person, if he happened to know about any of the German neoliberals of the 40's and 50's, might conclude that they have been condemned by most economists today. Consequently, I don't think we are being overly repetitious if we provide a very brief summary in the lead section of the material that is in the section "Terminology".

On the other hand, I think that we should keep the first two sentences of last week's lead section at the beginning of the present lead section. The Wikipedia article on lead sections states that if the subject of the article is definable, "then the first sentence should give a concise definition". I would argue that even though the term neoliberalism is today never clearly defined, it still has a somewhat vague meaning that can and should be summarized in the opening sentence.

The emphasis of the article is, and should be, on the present day definition of neoliberalism. At the same time, a substantial part of the article describes the neoliberalism of the 40's and 50's. So I think the lead section should begin by summarizing the present day meaning, and then speak about the earlier meaning and the subsequent shift in meaning.Dulcimer music (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)JDefauw

Austrian school section mostly WP:OR; whole article too?
Looking at those refs, and checking those that might actually use "neoliberalism" I found nothing categorizing the school like that. There were at least two refs in Mount Pelerin that did and those refs can be used. See: WP:Original research: ''To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. ''

I have a feeling "neoliberalism" like "right libertarianism" is more a pejorative phrase used more by opponents of free markets to describe those who hold various free market views than a phrase actually used by those who hold those views. Cutting the article down only to sources that use that word, plus those who use it for whatever other reasons, would result in a much shorter but much more accurate article. CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 03:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely that the article should be cut down to sources that actually use the term. It does indeed seem to have been mainly coined by opponents.  I can't think of anyone who uses the term to describe himself.  And the opponents seem to use the term to describe a very very wide range of ideas and policies they dislike rather than any single coherent political philosophy.  Limiting sources to those that actually use the term would limit these problems to those that are in the sources and would make for a less chaotic text, and help to avoid OR. cwmacdougall 10:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Like in right libertarianism there may have been a few times a few individuals with some views or others used the terms to describe themselves, but I have a feeling most of it will be a case of using a phrase to denigrate a group of people who don't use it. Just noticed this existing ref. Neoliberalism: The Genesis of a Political Swearword. It's also important to make sure that refs that allegedly support some view do so since I've found in some contentious political areas people just write what they please and claim some source or other said it. Verify, verify.
 * In general I like to cut the dead wood and then see what's left than can be made into a solid, verifiable article. It's usually pretty easy to do.
 * But for future reference, here are some sources describing neoliberalism as pejorative term. Which need to be added to the couple minor mentions. For lots more search books.google for "pejorative term neoliberal" and "pejorative neoliberal":
 * "Later in the 1990s, activists and scholars embraced neoliberalism as a pejorative term that describes ..." REF:p 9 Networking Arguments, Rebecca Ann Dingo, University of Pittsburgh Pre, 2012
 * "By early 1990s, however, left-leaning critics of market reform in the global South had imbued 'neoliberalism' with pejorative meanings associated with the 'Washington Consensus'..." Preface, Neoliberalism: National and Regional Experiments with Global Ideas, Manfred B. Steger, Ravi K. Roy, Routledge, 2005
 * "It is true that the term neoliberal — used right across the social sciences, often pejoratively, to encompass diverse ideologies, policies, and practices — has become one of those giant omnibus words that threaten to capsize with overstretched ..." p 269, Developmental Politics in Transition: The Neoliberal Era and Beyond, Editors Chang Kyung-Sup, Ben Fine, Linda Weiss, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012
 * "Official policy communities and their defenders avoid using the pejorative term "neoliberal":" Of centaurs and doves: Guatemala's peace process, Page 220, Susanne Jonas, 2000
 * Last but not least, a few pages on a Wikipedia discussion of this term at this article in 'The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective, p. 418 to at least 426, maybe 428 Can quote some of the discussion in this article!(?)! (And, yes, an editor said the term was pejorative.:-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  12:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Austrian School section appears to have been cut and paste from a version of the WP article of the same name, which has no reference to the topic of this article. The entire section, as it currently exists, should be deleted. SPECIFICO talk  14:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The whole article is filled with synth. Just looking at terminology section gave me a head ache they way it uses different pages from all over the same couple refs to make the points the editors wanted to make, rather than summarizing the author's points in a more logical order. This is a project truly worth gutting away at :-) CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd; 14:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

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 "nytimes": From Brooksley Born: Goodman, Peter S. The Reckoning - Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy, New York Times, October 9, 2008. From Portugal: "Portugal’s Debt Efforts May Be Warning for Greece", New York Times, February 14, 2012. From Murray Rothbard: David Stout, Obituary: Murray N. Rothbard, Economist And Free-Market Exponent, 68, The New York Times, January 11, 1995. From Russia:  From Nordic model: Higgins, Andrew (26 May 2013). "In Sweden, Riots Put an Identity in Question." The New York Times. Retrieved 29 June 2013. 

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 ⚡ 09:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just deleted one name reference because its no use to keep it. Additionally i wonder why Murray Rothbard is regarded relevant here tho he was Libertarian and very close to the Austrian School. Infact the Austrian School has a sad history in repetivly needing to fight the wrong categorisation as being part of Neoliberalism. --Kharon (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Referring to Left-wing views?
I just restored the passage about the occasional use of the term in the US to refer to centre-left views, an interesting alternative use of this problematic term. I don't understand why ‎Srich32977 deleted this well sourced alternative definition. cwmacdougall 3:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Three problems. 1. "label" is a WP:LABEL and WP:ALLEGED type term. 2. The text (as you want it) says Neoliberalism' is a label for Economic liberalism who advocates support economic liberalization...." (You don't mean to say, "neoliberalism is a label for economic liberals who advocate economic liberalism" do you?) 3. As is evident from #2, the syntax does not work. The prior version was better, because it did not have the circular definition or the contentions term "label". – S. Rich (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your deletion of "A movement from the left that used the term Neoliberalism to describe its ideology was formed in the United States in the 1981 ..." I don't understand why you deleted that.   cwmacdougall 7:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can see I restored the Brooks paragraph, with the exception of the last sentence. The Utube video is problematic, e.g., it looks like someone's (non-RS/secondary source) splicing of primary source info, but we don't know who put this together. The first paragraph (label et al) is reverted as per my syntax analysis, above. – S. Rich (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. I think I now agree with your version.    cwmacdougall 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Michel Foucault's usage
I have added an interesting reference to Michel Foucault's usage in his The Birth of Biopolitics Lectures at the College de France, 1978–1979. London: Palgrave, 2008. He is using the term in the older sense of a middle way between Capitalism and Socialism. I think some modern Left-wing users may be following on from his usage, while others may be using the term to mean Classical Liberalism. cwmacdougall 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You may want to check Ordoliberalism. There is no older sense of Neoliberalism because it was a mixup from start and thouse few that named themselves Neoliberals where probably to focused on saving Liberalism to pointing out their fundamental differences. That is why political and economic science speaks of two major forms of capitalism today. Check Varieties of Capitalism or Capitalisme contre Capitalisme. So alike when Foucault refers to "a middle way between Capitalism and Socialism" he means Ordoliberalism or Rhine capitalism but not anglo-american capitalism or what people today refer to as Neoliberalism. It is still a problem that Europeans, who likely want more anglo-american capitalism implemented in continental Europe, mix this up again to falsely connect their prefered liberal market economy to the successful tradition of the coordinated market economy that is widely accepted there. Additional in anglo-american areas you have Libertarians who try to frame up Neoliberalism aka liberal market economy by claiming it would try to implement Socialism. In result we have allot of confusion. --Kharon (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I think Foucault writing in 1979 is recent enough to be included in "what people today refer to as Neoliberalism". Yes the term is very confused and there is a case for dropping the entire article, but if we are going to discuss the term, then Foucault's recent usage should be included.  cwmacdougall 01:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would gladly support including Michel Foucaults views here but this should not be done without its context in some short pointy citations that are drawn out of context. Please lets find consensus about what to write and cite about and from Foucault here in discussion first. --Kharon (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * By all means make your suggested changes, but keep my beginning. What I wrote is a far better cited reference and far clearer meaning than almost anything else in this deeply flawed article.  cwmacdougall 9:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just aside of the issue of citing Foucault without proper context: 1) "He says" is wrong, its past so its "he said" 2) This is from 1979 making it 34 years old. You cant seriously point that out as (cite) "what people today refer to as Neoliberalism".
 * Also, just to be clear, i would very much like to see Foucaults views of Liberalism/Neoliberalism established in the article but in my view you made a very bad start in picking out a sentence that has "Neoliberalism" in it but is actualy only a minor side notice from Foucault. --Kharon (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are being ridiculous. How have I misquoted or quoted Foucault out of context?  1979 is current usage, and he is accurately quoted, and it is better cited than 90% of the article, which by your standard should also be deleted.  The paragraph should be restored.  cwmacdougall 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hayaks, Mises and Friedmans positional relation regarding Neoliberalism is already described in Neoliberalism. Its not about good or bad source nor is it about misquotation . --Kharon (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

But Foucault's position isn't, and I have accurately quoted him, in context, and his position is much more interesting because he actually uses the term, whereas Hayak, Mises, and Friedman do not. If you think I have misquoted Foucault, then please explain how. The paragraph should be restored. cwmacdougall 2:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, this is already in chapter Neoliberalism. Foucault should be cited and added with his analysis of neoliberalism in context of a political frame that forces his subject's selfeducation into a corset called homo economicus and thereby disenchanting the illusion of freedom (neo)liberalism keeps claiming to provide. This is the essencial critic viewpoint of Biopolitics and Governmentality that no other philosopher or intellectual but Michel Foucault provides and so that is what should be described here and that is what he should be quoted and cited on. --Kharon (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * But Foucault is not cited there, nor is his usage of neo-liberalism - current usage - mentioned, when it is very relevant. The word has more than one meaning and his should be mentioned.  I repeat: if you think I have misquoted him, or quoted out of context, please explain how, if you can.  Otherwise your deletion is just vandalism and in violation of the 3RR rule.   cwmacdougall 10:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already wrote yesterday that that is not the point. I underlined it for you. Also for the third time: This declaration about neoliberalism and Hayak, Mises and Friedman is already described in Neoliberalism. Adding this again does not make much sense. --Kharon (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The key point is that Foucault uses the term to mean something between Socialism and Classical Liberalism, whereas many appear to use it to mean Classical Liberalism. The usage is confused, and citing him helps to clear up the confusion.  I gather from your silence that you do not think I have misquoted Foucault.  cwmacdougall 10:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why use Foucault to describe the concept of third way? Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow wrote about that themselve. Also these are actualy the Ordoliberals, not the Neoliberals altho some of them called themselves Neoliberal for some time. Also "the third way" is a concept older than ordo- or neoliberalism and much closer to ordoliberalism than to neoliberalism. --Kharon (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also check Third_Way_(centrism). --Kharon (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Foucault should be used because it is current usage by a major figure, not a usage from the 30s. Almost no one uses the term "neoliberal" to describe himself now, so we are reliant on what others mean by the term, including a contemporary writer like Foucault. Methinks your objection is OR.   cwmacdougall 12:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep ignoring what i write. Its already in Neoliberalism. Maybe you want to use Google translation to understand what i write. --Kharon (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Foucault's usage is not mentioned there, the text there wrongly implies that usage is no longer significant, and stop vandalising the article; it is bad enough as it is. cwmacdougall 2:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Third opinion by GeorgeLouis: ....

Terminology
The entire terminology section is appalling, I have deleted two of the most egregious falsehoods (for example the claim that Hayek was a 'laissez-faire' classical liberal! 'Nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause ... as the principle of laissez-faire' [p.13 of Road to Serfdom, 1st edition] - he's all for interventions to establish conditions of competition, as is Friedman later). The major problem with most of this (and much of the rest of the article) is that it is guided by an assumption that because figures like Hayek and Friedman did not call themselves 'neoliberals', they were not 'neoliberals'. This is idiocy... Every single textbook, every journal article, that I have ever come across on the theory and practice of neoliberalism cites these individuals as founding fathers. It may be a retrospectively applied term, even a critical or pejorative one, but this is nonetheless what is meant by 'neoliberalism' today... This article is atrocious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.230.166 (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The term was a package of different ideologic streams from start and may better be seen as an liberal ideology collaboration against strong competing ideology like corporatism, socialism and communism. Ofcourse this implied a change of focus back on competition inside the liberal spectrum when the cold war ended and so Varieties of Capitalism or anglo-american vs european capitalism is the new focus. Naturally terms can become a label nomatter the product or concept behind it changes. There is no Cocain in Coca Cola anymore but its still the very same label. So best we can do here is to draw the historic development including the changes in reception. --Kharon (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)