"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an Scottish economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Topic: Neoliberalism: Free to Be Hungry (Read 878 times)
Neoliberalism is a pejorative term used by socialists against people they don't like.
It is a term with no clear definition - I've heard it used to describe libertarians, classical liberals, non-specific right-wing types, big government crony-capitalism types, and basically anyone else that socialists don't approve of.
You can tell a term is used pejoratively (rather than describing a real political persuasion) if you've never encountered someone who actually describes himself using that term. Have you ever met someone openly touting neoliberalism?
It's really just a socialist ad hominem argument - I don't agree with you so I'll call you a neoliberal and that will prove you wrong. It's not a real thing.
It is a term with no clear definition - I've heard it used to describe libertarians, classical liberals, non-specific right-wing types, big government crony-capitalism types, and basically anyone else that socialists don't approve of.
You can tell a term is used pejoratively (rather than describing a real political persuasion) if you've never encountered someone who actually describes himself using that term. Have you ever met someone openly touting neoliberalism?
It's really just a socialist ad hominem argument - I don't agree with you so I'll call you a neoliberal and that will prove you wrong. It's not a real thing.
FYI, "neoliberalism" is not really a widely used term outside of Germany. 
"neoliberal" is used extensively in mainstream media in the UK to refer to post-Thatcher small-government types, and I'm pretty sure it's used elsewhere too.
I think it generally gets lumped in with neo-conservatism (as neo-liberalism is a key tenant of that ideology), as contradictory as it sounds.
FYI, "neoliberalism" is not really a widely used term outside of Germany.
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
Fixing causes is quite inhumane... And who get's to choose the 10-30%?
This is only one argument Paul Krugman although described in this article ....
FYI, "neoliberalism" is not really a widely used term outside of Germany.
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
Really? I wouldn't have thought that. But I guess I took political theory classes at some point, so maybe my experience is not the norm. And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
Oh yes, Paul QE Krugman.
I've read an article about him too.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/08/28/How-Krugman-Got-it-Wrong-on-the-Markets-and-Tapering
I think this is a bit offtopic here. I bought some Indonesia and Thailand shares, supporting the price a little bit. I've read an article about him too.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/08/28/How-Krugman-Got-it-Wrong-on-the-Markets-and-Tapering
FYI, "neoliberalism" is not really a widely used term outside of Germany.
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
Yes, you are right. But till then we have to help the victims. And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
FYI, "neoliberalism" is not really a widely used term outside of Germany.
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
And even then, they seem to mean slightly different things.
And Krugman is just another of the Wizards of Oz. In this article he's pointlessly rambling about food stamps. Yes, probably the US Republicans are wrong, people do need food stamps as long as we live in a dictatorship of banking, corporotocracy and the military-industrial-oil-complex. But ultimately, we want to fix the causes rather than the symptoms, don't we?
Oh yes, Paul QE Krugman.
I've read an article about him too.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/08/28/How-Krugman-Got-it-Wrong-on-the-Markets-and-Tapering
I've read an article about him too.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/08/28/How-Krugman-Got-it-Wrong-on-the-Markets-and-Tapering
Jump to: