Are you able to name or to describe any important individuals, groups, events, policies, or ideas, related to neoliberalism, in any more detail than simply repeating the same sentence?
I’m asking nicely as a mod in this situation to please provide a source for mutual understanding. The very origin of this argument seems to stem from the operative word “promulgated”, which means “to make known to the public; popularize or advocate”. This, to me, means that you’re both on the same side arguing semantics. I’m not picking sides here, I generally agree with your description on the origins of neoliberalism, however I think a source on neoliberalism would go a long way in reaching an understanding.
If you insist someone else is wrong, then you should be able to provide an explanation more useful and more verifiable than some nebulous and meaningless word salad.
You should also be able to give such an explanation without ranting insults, or forming every sentence centered around the word “ironically”, or constantly lamenting of some imagined infiltration by “tankies”.
It is rather alarming that someone who has been so hotheaded, cocky, and brazen, about the subject of neoliberism, would not understand that the gold standard was a central policy under the Bretton Woods system, which codified the core tenants of embedded liberalism, the period preceding neoliberalism.
It is also alarming that someone would not understand how the Pinochet regime was formally based on neoliberal policies and ideals, as expressed by the “Chicago boys”, who were central to the coup being backed by the US.
I even gift wrapped privatization and strike busting, but all you could do was fall back on your shtick about the Soviet Union.
The Cold War and its end obviously shaped all of geopolitics during the relevant periods. Being unable to give any more particular explanation of neoliberalism reveals unequivocally how much you are full of shit.
Bretton woods wasn’t liberalism, in fact its base tenets of government responsibility is fundamentally anti-liberalism/anti-neolib, the abolishment of the gold standard also had nothing to do with neoliberal anything (ironically Neo-Liberals prefer the gold standard back)
the Pinochet regime was not based on neoliberal policies, not everything that is anti-communist post 1945 is neoliberal, Pinochet’s regime was what we would call “fascist”, now as any good fascist the ideology in incoherent but due to strong ties between state and capital they would enact some policy from the neoliberal playbooks while also claiming to be as such, but that’s as credible as the “socialist” dictators in Africa, just that instead of courting the soviets, they were courting the Americans.
as for the “gift wrapped privatization and strike busting” I believe I mentioned Thatcher and Regan, or do you think I use names like the English name eras like the “Victorian period”? no, I specifically mentioned them because they did this stuff.
as a side note, I don’t care much for liberal civility politics, so I will gladly call you out for an inability to actually think about the choice of words, and understand why you may be somewhat intimidated by reading up on the philosophical literature regrading these things Mr.“monogamous fulfilling relationships are a product of neoliberalism”.
It is hilarious how you seem to have actually had a cursory read up on neoliberalism, even if you clearly didn’t understand it completely
You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
The Bretton Woods economic philosophy strongly advocated for Keynesian style government interventions in currency and international trade, this puts it strongly at odds with Liberalism, one of who’s central pillars is that the government should not interfere in economics
Sure Embedded Liberalism was the point of the ideology between liberalism and neoliberalism, but just because it existed as a concept doesn’t mean that it was what was enacted, Bretton Woods wasn’t Embedded Liberalism.
by that logic, was imperial Germany socialist/communist?
also, I call you a tankie because you used neoliberal as a catchall terms describing all things you view as wrong with society, and that seems to always play out that those who see neoliberalism as the existential boogieman end up being tankies.
Are you able to name or to describe any important individuals, groups, events, policies, or ideas, related to neoliberalism, in any more detail than simply repeating the same sentence?
I’m not your teacher, I have told you often to go read up on this stuff yourself.
also, your own inability to read isn’t cause for me to further lecture you
I’m asking nicely as a mod in this situation to please provide a source for mutual understanding. The very origin of this argument seems to stem from the operative word “promulgated”, which means “to make known to the public; popularize or advocate”. This, to me, means that you’re both on the same side arguing semantics. I’m not picking sides here, I generally agree with your description on the origins of neoliberalism, however I think a source on neoliberalism would go a long way in reaching an understanding.
sure, Anthropologyreview seems to have a decent summary of NeoLiberalism that seems to be good (tho I would still suggest everyone look into some of the economics surrounding the economic philosophy)
If you insist someone else is wrong, then you should be able to provide an explanation more useful and more verifiable than some nebulous and meaningless word salad.
You should also be able to give such an explanation without ranting insults, or forming every sentence centered around the word “ironically”, or constantly lamenting of some imagined infiltration by “tankies”.
It is rather alarming that someone who has been so hotheaded, cocky, and brazen, about the subject of neoliberism, would not understand that the gold standard was a central policy under the Bretton Woods system, which codified the core tenants of embedded liberalism, the period preceding neoliberalism.
It is also alarming that someone would not understand how the Pinochet regime was formally based on neoliberal policies and ideals, as expressed by the “Chicago boys”, who were central to the coup being backed by the US.
I even gift wrapped privatization and strike busting, but all you could do was fall back on your shtick about the Soviet Union.
The Cold War and its end obviously shaped all of geopolitics during the relevant periods. Being unable to give any more particular explanation of neoliberalism reveals unequivocally how much you are full of shit.
Bretton woods wasn’t liberalism, in fact its base tenets of government responsibility is fundamentally anti-liberalism/anti-neolib, the abolishment of the gold standard also had nothing to do with neoliberal anything (ironically Neo-Liberals prefer the gold standard back)
the Pinochet regime was not based on neoliberal policies, not everything that is anti-communist post 1945 is neoliberal, Pinochet’s regime was what we would call “fascist”, now as any good fascist the ideology in incoherent but due to strong ties between state and capital they would enact some policy from the neoliberal playbooks while also claiming to be as such, but that’s as credible as the “socialist” dictators in Africa, just that instead of courting the soviets, they were courting the Americans.
as for the “gift wrapped privatization and strike busting” I believe I mentioned Thatcher and Regan, or do you think I use names like the English name eras like the “Victorian period”? no, I specifically mentioned them because they did this stuff.
as a side note, I don’t care much for liberal civility politics, so I will gladly call you out for an inability to actually think about the choice of words, and understand why you may be somewhat intimidated by reading up on the philosophical literature regrading these things Mr.“monogamous fulfilling relationships are a product of neoliberalism”. It is hilarious how you seem to have actually had a cursory read up on neoliberalism, even if you clearly didn’t understand it completely
You think the policies under Bretton Woods were not liberal.
You are so full of shit.
The only accurate statement I found in all of your comments is that Star Trek depicts a moneyless society. You’re right. It does. Nicely done.
You are a hotheaded buffoon.
The Bretton Woods economic philosophy strongly advocated for Keynesian style government interventions in currency and international trade, this puts it strongly at odds with Liberalism, one of who’s central pillars is that the government should not interfere in economics
The period of such policies, developed under Bretton Woods, is called the period of embedded liberalism, as I mentioned several times.
Embedded liberalism is the name scholars give to the postwar period, between the periods of classical liberalism and of neoliberalism.
You contribute nothing except noise.
Star Trek has no money. That means I’m smart and everyone else is a tankie.
Sure Embedded Liberalism was the point of the ideology between liberalism and neoliberalism, but just because it existed as a concept doesn’t mean that it was what was enacted, Bretton Woods wasn’t Embedded Liberalism.
by that logic, was imperial Germany socialist/communist?
also, I call you a tankie because you used neoliberal as a catchall terms describing all things you view as wrong with society, and that seems to always play out that those who see neoliberalism as the existential boogieman end up being tankies.
I asserted that the period preceding neoliberalism is called embedded liberalism.
It is.
Yet, you insisted on objecting anyway.
It’s fine though; you don’t need to agree.
If someone offers an idea that you fail to comprehend, or mentions discourse outside your knowledge, then you can always fall back on name calling.