This is all really interesting. The neo-liberal I was referring to is an ever expanding universe but originally based in developmental economics and the work of Kenneth Arrow. Basically it suggests that we can improve social communities (make them happier) by instituting global free market policies. The way we prove this is by measuring some aggregate in society that it can be argued does increase happiness - usually that is GDP. So neo-liberals look to increase GDP through dramatic free market interventions (the intervention is usually doing away with some non-free market institution). Once the market works its magic it will then magically create demodractic institutions for watch over these wondrous developments. By the way, from what I have heard this has not worked anywhere. It has been translated to school reform and the idea that we have to measure increase in the ability of school systems to create happiness by some aggregate - and since the major aggregagte measure we have is standardized tests, we are supposed to use free market interventions to increase standardized tests and this will magicaly make everything better. It is as Bill suggests a variation of neo-classical theory, which was actually terms neo-classical liberal theory in England for some time. This has been rolled into neo-conservatism which is an American approach which suggests that the United State should impose its better form of free market capitalism on the rest of the world and recreate other governments in our own image. The goal is to destroy any type of welfare system in a country and then use it as a laboratory for free market neo-liberal capitalism. The most famous example was the Chilean coup of Allende. The neo-conservative approach got rolled into the neo-liberal approach and now seems to be referred to as mostly ne0-liberalism. Probably more than anybody was interested in. Michael ________________________________ From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Bill Kerr Sent: Mon 10/31/2011 6:20 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: "neo-liberal" Re:[xmca]schools-without-computers-by-choice-and-conviction-that-they-dont-help-kids On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote: (moving to this thread) > > > On 31 October 2011 00:45, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > > > C'mon Huw! :) "Neo-liberal" is an extremely common term in public > > discourse here in Australia. Of course I can't answer for the US, even > > though the ideas arrived here from the US. Here's the Wikipedia entry: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism which shows its specific > > meanings in a number of different countries. I would say that the term > came > > in in the wake of the failure of both Keynes and Milton Friedman, though > > the notion is very sympathetic to Milton Friedman's ideology, but not so > > closely associated with control of the macro-economic levers by central > > government. Part of the difficulty of accepting the term in the US may be > > the use of "liberal" as a term of abuse by those who are in fact > > "neo-liberals". The ideas are native to the US but the choice of word is > > somewhat "un-American." :) > Naomi Klein in *Shock Doctrine* says the in the US the word is neoconservatism *This liberation from all constraints is, in essence, Chicago School economics (otherwise known as neoliberalism or, in the U.S., neoconservatism): not some new invention but capitalism stripped of its Keynesian appendages* *(p. 253)* > > > > Andy > > > > > Yes, I briefly checked the wiki link. Re, "As such, the term is not > associated with any definite ideology and is usually used accusingly and > derogatorily against others, rather than as a self-label." > > Which is consistent with (the political) polluting of the usage of "neo" > and "liberal". It might be more honest to say "fake liberal", only that > would be more constructive, rather than using it to accuse someone (or > something) as belonging to an ideology that is ill thought out whilst, > apparently, imputing the stupidity of the term to the target of one's woe. > > If its an ill-thought name at the vanguard of thinking that cannot attain > to constructive use, why bother with it? > Milton Friedman in *Capitalism and Freedom* claims that his use of the word liberalism (not neoliberalism) is consistent with 19C usage but that unfortunately the word liberalism has had its meaning changed (but nevertheless he sticks to using it in the absence of a better alternative): *The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!* *(p. 13)* So, yes, Huw, the word neoliberalism is a word invented by others to either describe or abuse Friedman. He self described as in the 19C liberal tradition. I found this page useful and entertaining (but not sure how accurate) in describing some differences between Adam Smith liberal and Milton Friedman (neo) liberal, http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.html > Huw > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
<<winmail.dat>>
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca