Ron Paul Rises

[Kuya]

I don't think you know what neoliberalism means.

He's an anarcho-capitalist, therefore 'no true scotsman'.

[guartz]

I don't think you know what neoliberalism means.

I don't think YOU know what neoliberalism means.

[guartz]

Or they could slash taxes on the wealthy/create corporate tax loopholes whilst slashing benefits for the middle/lower classes (which is exactly what I fucking said), maintaining their balanced budget and doing exactly what they want on both ends.

Just got to thinking, what benefits do middle class gets in America? Medicare at 65?

[test123]

They get to proudly send their children to Usbekibekistastan.

[guartz]

do you guys really don't know what neoliberalism is, or am I being trolled?

[Kerberoz]

The same thing as every other "neo______" label: a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

[Kuya]

do you guys really don't know what neoliberalism is, or am I being trolled?

It means new classical liberals. No. It doesn't matter that they don't literally advocate for a truly free market because not even the classicals advocated for a truly free market. Neither Adam Smith or David Ricardo argued for the abolition of the State nor its absolute non-involvement in all economic matters.

[Demosthenes11]

oh, are we moving to a new it-phrase? neocon stuck so long, but without beckwin, I knew it was to die eventually

[guartz]

It means new classical liberals. No. It doesn't matter that they don't literally advocate for a truly free market because not even the classicals advocated for a truly free market. Neither Adam Smith or David Ricardo argued for the abolition of the State nor its absolute non-involvement in all economic matters.

Neoliberalism has been made relevant because Washington has been pushing it abroad and domestically for close to 50 years now. It's not some catch phrase, but concrete set of economic policies. I'm surprised at your lack on knowledge on this, as this is pretty important. At any rate, neoliberalism has been criticized to cause growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor, most noticeably in South America.

AS to why it's not free market, is because it was never intended to be. It's state capitalism.

[Cail]

relevant only cuz its a ron paul thread

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul took some strong digs at his fellow candidates Friday, saying Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum doesn’t like “gay people and Muslims.”

Paul made his comments on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” when the host asked him for his take on the other GOP contenders in the field.

On Bachmann, the Texas congressman said: “She doesn’t like Muslims, she hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.”

“Wow, okay, that’s not good,” Leno said.

And Santorum?

“Gay people and Muslims,” Paul answered.

The rest of Paul’s evaluations were decidedly tamer. On Mitt Romney, Paul simply said, “He used to be governor of Massachusetts.”

When Leno pointed out his answer sounded like one Texas Gov. Rick Perry might give, Paul added: “Maybe that’s what he should stay as, being governor.”

On Newt Gingrich: “He should run for Speaker of the House again.”

On former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman: “He’s a good diplomat, he knows what diplomacy is all about.”

[Kuya]

Neoliberalism has been made relevant because Washington has been pushing it abroad and domestically for close to 50 years now. It's not some catch phrase, but concrete set of economic policies. I'm surprised at your lack on knowledge on this, as this is pretty important. At any rate, neoliberalism has been criticized to cause growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor, most noticeably in South America.

AS to why it's not free market, is because it was never intended to be. It's state capitalism.

The term is used both to refer to a return to classical liberal policy making and to refer to the Washington Concensus, so try not to lecture me.

Furthermore, it's always been state backed capitalism, and the no true scotsman crap is unconvincing.

[guartz]

The term is used both to refer to a return to classical liberal policy making and to refer to the Washington Concensus, so try not to lecture me.

Furthermore, it's always been state backed capitalism, and the no true scotsman crap is unconvincing.

You know, in England, 'fags' used to mean cigarettes. We were talking about economic policies, not some abstract concepts with free markets or some mundane use of a highly misused term like neoliberalism. Hey, just for fun. Since it's a return to classic liberal policy, could you name one economic agenda that's different with neocons and neolibs?


I'll wait here.

[Kuya]

I don't understand what your point is. Neoliberalism as a term used to refer to renewed enthusiasm for classical economic theory in policy making since 1980 is no different from neoliberalism as a description for US policy abroad. At no point is there any inconsistency, because being a classical economist never required you to believe in absolutely no government intervention at all, and even from the very begining, disagreement always existed about when and where government should get involved.

Classical economists have never been anarcho capitalists and neither are neoliberals.

How about this, why don't you try and make a different argument that doesn't involve calling into question whether people in this thread understand what neoliberalism means because semantic debates are the last refuge of those on the losing side of a debate. And also, why don't you try to sing us a different tune that doesn't involve you telling us how classical economists, neoliberals, and libertarians aren't really for the free market because they aren't dumb enough to argue for a literal abolition of state responsability to regulate market.

Yes, we all know that free market doesn't literally mean that. Yes, it sucks that human language is most often not literal at all. No, you don't need to wear a monocle to remind us that human language is not literal. And no, we don't need you to lecture us on how the commonly understood meaning of a word is not legitimate because it is not liberal.

[Kuya]

Not that i would expect an anarcho-capitalist to understand the concept of degrees, but neoconservative is less defined than neoliberal. The former more often associated with liberals with hawkish foreign policy views turned republican and largely understood to support highly interventionist foreign policy. Often called imperialists. They don't care about economic policy anywhere near as much as neoliberals, but military interventionist foreign policy goes hand in hand with the economic aspirations of the US to maintain foreign markets open to American MNCs and free trade.

[Demosthenes11]

you don't have the very same concept of what this rarely used term means!? wow idiot

[guartz]

I don't understand what your point is. Neoliberalism as a term used to refer to renewed enthusiasm for classical economic theory in policy making since 1980 is no different from neoliberalism as a description for US policy abroad. At no point is there any inconsistency, because being a classical economist never required you to believe in absolutely no government intervention at all, and even from the very begining, disagreement always existed about when and where government should get involved.

Classical economists have never been anarcho capitalists and neither are neoliberals.

How about this, why don't you try and make a different argument that doesn't involve calling into question whether people in this thread understand what neoliberalism means because semantic debates are the last refuge of those on the losing side of a debate. And also, why don't you try to sing us a different tune that doesn't involve you telling us how classical economists, neoliberals, and libertarians aren't really for the free market because they aren't dumb enough to argue for a literal abolition of state responsability to regulate market.

Yes, we all know that free market doesn't literally mean that. Yes, it sucks that human language is most often not literal at all. No, you don't need to wear a monocle to remind us that human language is not literal. And no, we don't need you to lecture us on how the commonly understood meaning of a word is not legitimate because it is not liberal.

Right, we are getting on the same page here. Now just understand that neoliberalism refers to specific economic policies and not some abstract concepts about free market. Not only are those specific economic policies are ideologically incompatible, like you said, neoliberalism was never designed to be anything resembling free market as it is simply state capitalism.

Just remember this all started when I commented on your statement when you referred to "neoliberals being more free-market then X." If by freemarket you meant state capitalism, then I understand where this confusion came from.

[Demosthenes11]

condescension over semantics is a really, really pathetic look on anyone

[guartz]

if you insist on saying that the difference between neoliberalism and freemarket is mere semantics, I can assure you my condescension is justified.

[Demosthenes11]

If you think it is justified, I can assure you you look like a humongous tool right now.

[guartz]

and one line quips make you what?