Frank wrote on Sep 2
nd, 2022 at 2:27pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27
th, 2022 at 1:14pm:
Frank wrote on Aug 26
th, 2022 at 8:38pm:
So NEO liberalism is what happened before 1929
No. You misread my meaning.... so I'll reword it:
(classical) liberalism - ie, market non-intervention - led to the GD in 1929. The NEO-liberalism terminology was adopted to describe the system which supplanted Keynesian economics, following the stagflation era in the 70's.
Quote:But here you are, a 100 years later, STILL banging on as if it was still 1929?
"Refuted above" innit, galah.
Your confusion now cleared up, hopefully.
There has NEVER been 'market non-intervention'. It's a fantasy, as if your classification of the economic system into neat little ideological categories to suit your silly little 'refuted above' psittacism.
Wrong again, though your typical black and white view of the world makes you difficult to educate (free market conservative ideologues promote MINIMAL intervention).
Liberal Economics in the West more or less developed in a sraight line from Smith in the 18th century up to the GD in 1929. (Marx's 19th century theories were not realized in the West).
It took FDR's 'New Deal' intervention (resisted by Conservatives), to deal with the unemployment of the GD; Keynes had much to say at this time, and indeed successful Keynesian 'welfare state' policies were widely established after WW2.
But giobal geopolitics in the 70's - Arab oil shock and low-wage competition from Asia - resulted in loss of industry in the 1st world, so Keynesian fiscal spendng seemed no longer to work, as the West faced a truly global economy for the first time.
Hence the wrong-headed move to NEO-liberalism - a backward step, whose consequences we are all facing now (wage stagnation/cost of living pressures, unaffordable housing and homelessness, persistent long-term unemployment).
Quote:The economic life of a country is not separate from its other aspects, like politics, history, ethos, customs, religion and social norms, foreign relations, even it's art and intellectual life. And no two courtiers travel the same route.
True, but the West's reaction to the 70s stagflation as outlined above, is real history which is still playing out today, under
neoliberal dogma (privatization, 'small government' and Friedman's supply-side economics, cf Keynes' 'demand side' theory).
Quote:There is one thing they all share though - no country has an omnicompetent bureaucracy. Not even China. If anything, socialist bureaucracies are the MOST incompetent BECAUSE they ARE expected to be omnicompetent. An excellent illustration of a inverse correlation.
Keynes wasn't considered to be 'socialist', though he did prescribe deficit spending to maintain full employment - and Menzies proved to be a very successful facilitator of Keynesian policy.
[Today, it's absurd that fiat currency-issuing government should be forced to borrow money from
private financiers who "must be repaid" with interest; taxation*** alone should clearly fund government, to deliver full employment and wages growth - to supplement private sector employment as eequired.
***MMT reverses the function of taxation, but that is another story. Richard Denniss rejects MMT; he wants taxation alone to fund the public services desired by the community.
But Biden is struggling with that in the US, with Trump's low-tax republicans theatening violence against the Dem government, which is attempting to improve the incomes and public services for the poorer half of the community ]