Buck Laser
08-16-2007, 07:02 PM
Since a few posters on DF love to toss the term "neo-lib" around as a pejorative, I thought I'd take a quick look at what the hell it's supposed to mean. Given the fact that the posters who use the term tend to be sloppy and imprecise in their expression, going for what they think a word means rather than using it properly, I figured Wikipedia would be a pretty good place to begin. Not a tool for serious research, I know, but still more seriously researched than our resident word butchers are willing to do. So here's the link: NEOLIBERALISM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
And here, in brief, are the policies advanced by "neoliberalsim:"
Policies Advanced by Neoliberalism
The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's[3] "Washington Consensus" , a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). These reforms are described by Dani Rodrik[4] as:
* Fiscal rectitude, meaning that governments would cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to maintain a budget surplus
* Competitive exchange rates, whereby governments would accept market-determined exchange rates, as opposed to implemented government-fixed exchange rates, as had prevailed under the Bretton Woods System
* Free Trade, which means the selected removal of trade barriers, like tariffs, subsidies, and regulatory trade barriers
* Privatization, which means the transfer of previously-public-owned enterprises, goods, and services to the private sector.
* Undistorted Market Prices, meaning that governments would selectively refrain from policies that would alter market prices.
* Limited Intervention, with the exception of intervention designed to promote exports, some kinds of education or infrastructural development.
That's straight out of the article. It doesn't sound a BIT like what the DF posters are accusing us liberals of. I've always been proud to carry the "liberal" banner, but this "neo-liberal" stuff sounds JUST LIKE neoconservatism rehashed--or libertarianism.
Surely you guys can do better.
And here, in brief, are the policies advanced by "neoliberalsim:"
Policies Advanced by Neoliberalism
The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's[3] "Washington Consensus" , a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the IMF and World Bank). These reforms are described by Dani Rodrik[4] as:
* Fiscal rectitude, meaning that governments would cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to maintain a budget surplus
* Competitive exchange rates, whereby governments would accept market-determined exchange rates, as opposed to implemented government-fixed exchange rates, as had prevailed under the Bretton Woods System
* Free Trade, which means the selected removal of trade barriers, like tariffs, subsidies, and regulatory trade barriers
* Privatization, which means the transfer of previously-public-owned enterprises, goods, and services to the private sector.
* Undistorted Market Prices, meaning that governments would selectively refrain from policies that would alter market prices.
* Limited Intervention, with the exception of intervention designed to promote exports, some kinds of education or infrastructural development.
That's straight out of the article. It doesn't sound a BIT like what the DF posters are accusing us liberals of. I've always been proud to carry the "liberal" banner, but this "neo-liberal" stuff sounds JUST LIKE neoconservatism rehashed--or libertarianism.
Surely you guys can do better.