Politics in America

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok then, you still retain the right of self determination and can jump in front of a train.

Law of gravity, or law of inertia. Both natural physical laws which can't be repealed or modified by men in government.

Originally posted by finnegan
Similarly, if you believe neoliberal free market ideology you are unable to think rationally or objectively - every problem has its pre-determined solution. You can't be both a pawn of the neoliberal agenda and a clear thinking citizen.

" if you believe neoliberal free market ideology"

This isn't (neo) liberal, but classical liberal. It stems from enlightenment philosophy.

Originally posted by normbenign
" if you believe neoliberal free market ideology"

This isn't (neo) liberal, but classical liberal. It stems from enlightenment philosophy.

Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism whose advocates support laissez faire, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.[1][2][3]

references:
[1] http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story067/en/
[2] http://onswipe.investopedia.com/investopedia/#!/entry/,5228e19bda27f5d9d017c405
[3] Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

- Wikipedia

Originally posted by JS357
Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalism whose advocates support laissez faire, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.[1][2][3]

references:
[1] http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story067/en/
[2] http://onswipe.investopedia.com/investopedia/#!/entry/,5228e19bda27f5d ...[text shortened]... – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

- Wikipedia

That would hardly be neo (new). Its advocates go back to Adam Smith in the 17th century, and others before him.

By the method of defining it as neo??, they lump free market thinking in with certain ideologies that are decidedly not free market. Neither Bernanke, nor Greenspan before him or even Milton Friedman were true advocates of free markets, though at time they gave lip service to them.

Originally posted by normbenign
That would hardly be neo (new). Its advocates go back to Adam Smith in the 17th century, and others before him.

By the method of defining it as neo??, they lump free market thinking in with certain ideologies that are decidedly not free market. Neither Bernanke, nor Greenspan before him or even Milton Friedman were true advocates of free markets, though at time they gave lip service to them.

I generally don't argue about definitions it's just to clarify that finn's might differ from yours.

BTW the second reference link looks to be broken but this can be found at the site:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp


quote:

Definition of 'Neoliberalism'

An approach to economics and social studies in which control of economic factors is shifted from the public sector to the private sector. Drawing upon principles of neoclassical economics, neoliberalism suggests that governments reduce deficit spending, limit subsidies, reform tax law to broaden the tax base, remove fixed exchange rates, open up markets to trade by limiting protectionism, privatize state-run businesses, allow private property and back deregulation.

Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Neoliberalism'

The use of the term "liberal" in economics is different from its use in politics. Liberalism in economics refers to "freeing up" the economy by removing barriers and restrictions to what actors can do. Neoliberalism's policies seek to create a laissez-faire atmosphere for economic development.

unquote

Originally posted by JS357
I generally don't argue about definitions it's just to clarify that finn's might differ from yours.

BTW the second reference link looks to be broken but this can be found at the site:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp


quote:

Definition of 'Neoliberalism'

An approach to economics and social studies in which control of econom ...[text shortened]... alism's policies seek to create a laissez-faire atmosphere for economic development.

unquote

Ok, but that still introduces less clarity into the subject. The trouble with discussing economics isn't language, but intentional efforts to disqualify one side of the argument. It is also a tendency to lump together all of one school into adversaries of the other.

Many Universities teach Austrian economics alongside Keynesian.

My point was that free market thinking is hardly new, nor has it been refuted.

Originally posted by normbenign
Ok, but that still introduces less clarity into the subject. The trouble with discussing economics isn't language, but intentional efforts to disqualify one side of the argument. It is also a tendency to lump together all of one school into adversaries of the other.

Many Universities teach Austrian economics alongside Keynesian.

My point was that free market thinking is hardly new, nor has it been refuted.

My point was that free market thinking is hardly new, nor has it been refuted.

Which way would you like to go on this one? Free Market thinking was put forward without evidence and has persisted without evidence so it is not necessary to refute it. On the other hand, it has been refuted empirically and that evidence is ignored by conservative economists. Start with Steve Keen's book on Debunking Economics before progressing to Capital by Piketty. Then come back to debate with a better foundation.

Originally posted by finnegan

My point was that free market thinking is hardly new, nor has it been refuted.

Which way would you like to go on this one? Free Market thinking was put forward without evidence and has persisted without evidence so it is not necessary to refute it. On the other hand, it has been refuted empirically and that evidence is ignored by conservative ...[text shortened]... ics before progressing to Capital by Piketty. Then come back to debate with a better foundation.

I would choose rather to rely on Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiate, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlett, Murry Rothbard, Thomas Sowell and others.

I don't accept their writings without critical review, and I may at some point read Steve Keen, or Piketty. The best way to test one's beliefs is to read materials that purport to refute them.

Your two given alternatives aren't the only ones.

I'm afraid that my debating will continue without those writings becoming required reading.

Originally posted by normbenign
I would choose rather to rely on Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiate, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlett, Murry Rothbard, Thomas Sowell and others.

I don't accept their writings without critical review, and I may at some point read Steve Keen, or Piketty. The best way to test one's beliefs is to read materials that purport to refute them.

Your two given a ...[text shortened]... .

I'm afraid that my debating will continue without those writings becoming required reading.

I'm happy. You can take a horse to water ...

Originally posted by finnegan
I'm happy. You can take a horse to water ...

I did not say I wouldn't read the recommended books, but I will not feel unfulfilled and ill educated until I do.