I must admit, I am befuddled. I honestly cannot tell if you have a very good sense of humor and you are engaging in a little parody of yourself…or if you took a writing class from the Derrida School.

Seriously, though–this single sentence that you wrote:

“With emphasis on the individual and near denial of the social (without which there would be no ‘individual’), it fed into, and came to be fed by, neoclassic economics’ dependence on axioms of methodological individualism and instrumentalism, a dependence which has prevented it from ever properly integrating macro and micro but provided fallacies of composition and ideologies.”

…is worthy of an Onion article. Funny stuff!

I agree with everything you say. There is a very small minority of “government is bad” people around but that sort of thinking hasn’t affected the policies of either the Coalition or the ALP.

I would probably say that Australia managed to reform itself in those areas that mattered, while leaving essential government services as a safety net (which is a social democratic ideal).

Australia’s reform process is hardly perfect, but I think it could serve as an example of where neoliberalism got it right.

(BTW I am very much from the Social Democratic / Ordoliberalism economic mindset. This means that I see room for some good government services alongside a free market economy)

I do not assume “That global economic growth is both desirable and obtainable” but do ‘assume’ that capital(ism) is an historically particular system of production not for production’s sake but profit and accumulation, that this is also an inherent drive to expand as though there are no limits, and that production/consumption is not an equilibrium relation but one of contradiction in which overproduction of means of production must episodically take place, giving rise to masses of unemployed capital next to which stand unemployed people and that no amount of ‘fine tuning’ can prevent this but at very most, mitigate.

anon, 5:06 PM

Yes, Nick has been writing about these contradictions for years, so has Juan and many other people. The first clear statement of that between global economy and national states which I’m aware of was written in 1914.

“…think BSC bailout.”

My favorite example: the corn-ethanol susidies.

Anyway, as Carlos Fuentes asked, are “we fatally caught between the Chicago Boys and the Marx Brothers: savage, unrestricted capitalism or inefficient, centralized bureaucratic socialism?”

In many ways the preachers of the right and the preachers of the left aren’t all that different. Hugo Chavez and Ronald Reagan provide the perfect example. In both we have populist demagogues who pander/pandered to the public’s propensity for wishful thinking. This characterization of Reagan give you some pause? If so, consider these comments by the veteran polster Daniel Yankelovich concerning the “right-wing populist”:

“In the Reagan years after the severe recession from 1981 to 1983, Americans went on a prolonged mental holiday. They were encouraged to do so by Mr. Reagan’s own wishful thinking, which seemed to bring good times to the country. Opinion polls showed that once one got beyond the first superficial questions, people realized it was not possible to lower taxes, vastly increase defense expenditures, and balance the budget all at the same time. But Ronald Reagan was president. He accepted the responsibility. He said what people desperately wanted to hear after so many years of increased taxes, stagflation, divisiveness over the war in Vietnam, and social policies that deeply troubled average Americans.”

I suppose recent events are suddenly bringing home to more thoughtful Americans the harsh truth about their native land–its staggering indebtedness, the national failure to address the energy issue, its power that has shown itself impotent, and are desperately attempting to discover at what point reality was exchanged for illusion.

My observations are somewhat dated, since I last lived in Oz in 2004, but I thought Australia had achieved a good balance between social safety nets and market-based activities. One can quibble plenty about the particulars (don’t get me started on the GST….) but the overall mix was about right.

However, there are huge differences between Australia and the US. One is that Australia is committed to being a middle class society (for instance, considerable hue and cry when CEOs get pay that is a far less out of line with worker wages than here). Second is that unions still have power, and as a result, worker rights are much better protected (for instance, the minimum wage is considerably higher in relative terms and adjusted more frequently). Third is that Australians as a whole are far more community-minded (and I don’t know whether this is separate or related, but far more interested and informed about politics). Fourth is they never got a dose of the Reagan/Thatcher “government is bad” prescription. I had the feeling, based on community meetings I attended in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs (an upscale area) that people liked having the government provide service and accepted being taxed for them. A shockingly adult attitude.

GDP data sourced from:

Angus Maddison. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective (Paris: OECD Development Center, 2001).

United Nations, World Economic Survey (New York: United Nations), various issues.

Though often ignored, no one seriously denies the post-WWII curve.

I used GDP as one metric simply because it has been used by those who had promised such glowing results. (Stiglitz has had a few things to say on this).

The decline in constant dollar wages here was not only here. Think, if you care, about the very high rates of inflation throughout so much of the ‘developing’ world during most of the period, or the slumps in Europe and Japan, or the Asian Crisis. Then there has also been technological displacement as relatively more advanced means of production were put in place: same or greater mass of capital requiring relatively fewer workers to produce a greater quantity of goods/services. To which should be added the general weakness of labor unions, especially those which were/are not independent but state controlled.

Broadening and deepening of real market(s) has much to do with the process of transforming independent producers into wage workers; contradiction arises between the number of employees required and the number ‘coming on stream’. Mike Davis’ 2006 book, Planet of Slums, speaks to this with quite a bit of hard data from which one can begin to understand that ‘immiserizing growth’ need not be only terms of trade related. IOW, there are systemic ‘limits to growth’ unrelated to environmental constraints.
Heck, we get to see some of these right up on the surface with every recession…some tend to be cumulative and lead into at least fairly evident discontinuities and transitional phases in the form of the capital system.

Dan Duncan.

The term ‘neo-liberal’ is not my invention. ‘Neo’ has been used to differentiate/connect the last decades with the period of 19th c. liberalism. With emphasis on the individual and near denial of the social (without which there would be no ‘individual’), it fed into, and came to be fed by, neoclassic economics’ dependence on axioms of methodological individualism and instrumentalism, a dependence which has prevented it from ever properly integrating macro and micro but provided fallacies of composition and ideologies.

You are correct, I did pose price of oil as an ‘either/or’ in an attempt to emphasize the change in regime which placed financial markets at its center, which is certainly nothing I haven’t written about before and hasn’t been pointed out for years. Once again, check it out and I’m sure you will arrive at an understanding that these prices are only (real) ‘market related’.

Agreed. Thanks for a recap of the AT&T breakup. In this instance, the Feds were acting appropriately in the capacity as a referee by establish a playing field where numerous teams could compete. They were not attempting to participate in the game itself by arbitrarily stepping in and deciding which teams don’t deserve to lose -think BSC bailout.

I’m of the opionion we need some additional regulation(especially regarding the CRA’s) but we need more monitoring and enforcement of current laws regulations. Why were the IB’s allowed to transfer all those assets and liabilities to the SIV’s when, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it’s clear the IB’s were still on the hook. Think of Harvey Pitt’s refusal to take action against the Big 4 early in this decade until the media attention following Spitzer’s successes as NY AG, forced Pitt to take action. New rules and regs won’t mean anything if they’re not enforced.

However, I’m still not sure what the author of the piece presented by Yves, was suggesting as the best alternative.