Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Origin of neoliberalism, what it actually is; articles needs a significant rewrite

A similar talk post on this was archived, but the article as is does not really touch upon what neoliberalism actually is, and you need to go to its origins to discover this. Neoliberalism was formulated by Walter Lippman's "The Good Society" in 1937, and the word itself coined, at least in its meaning in this context, in 1938 by Alexander Rüstow at the '“Walter Lippmann Colloquium,” organized by French liberal philosopher and logical positivist Louis Rougier.' The first line in the article is wrong: Neoliberalism REJECTS laissez-faire, and is ANTI-19th-century classical liberalism, perhaps better known today as the "night-watchman state." As best I can tell, neoliberalism was "democratic, tolerated a wide degree of regulation, plus welfare states, public education, and public provision of healthcare and infrastructure." Not free-market, and not classical liberal. https://fee.org/articles/what-is-neoliberalism-anyway/. I am not a student of neoliberalism in particular, but this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies, and needs a big rewrite to put down what neoliberalism actually is; where it came from; and its effects, good and bad, and why. I am sure this is a doable project, although finding Lippman's "The Good Society" as a necessary primary source, being the originator of the concept; although I can only find it for myself here (Google Books, library system) at the publisher's website, https://www.routledge.com/The-Good-Society/Lippmann/p/book/9780765808042, and it's out of stock. Is anyone interested in working on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While the term neoliberalism was used in the 1930s (and again by U.S. Democrats and others in the 1980s with a different meaning), the term used today has its origins in the early 1990s and there is no evidence that the people using it were implying that it was a continuation of the 1930s concept. In Dancing with Dogma (1992), Ian Gilmour said that Thatcher did not stand for traditional conservative values, but 19th century liberal values, hence she was a "neo-liberal."[1] TFD (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure of your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is that the topic is a concept that developed in the early 1990s, although the term had been used before with a different meaning. TFD (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Infact there was huge dispute from start. Among the inventors at the Colloque Walter Lippmann! They had regular debates about that at their Mont Pelerin Society-Gatherings, in correspondence and in writing of articles and books. Massive differences from the start. And as we see here that has not changed till today. --Kharon (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I see no need for a rewrite given that neoliberalism is almost never used in that context in modern discourse or scholarship. The article already discusses the origins of neoliberalism and its shift in meaning in both the lede and the origins sub-section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Plehwe and Mirowski's book 'The Road from Mont Pelerin' do use it in that context. Many other authors such as Will Davies also point out that is not laissez-faire and distinct from liberalism.For example, Mirowski has pointed many times that David Harvey conflates the two. For example here's a quote from his review of David Harvey's book 'Brief History of Neoliberalism' - "They changed their minds over numerous issues, extending even what they should call their movement. They started out using the moniker “neoliberalism”(Friedman, 1951), but backed away from it over time, which helps explain why the designation is still so misunderstood in Anglophone contexts.Harvey(p.20)simply identifies neoliberalism with neoclassicaleconomics, but that is both a technical and philosophical error. He also (p. 64) comes close to identifying neoliberalism with the classical limited state;that too is badly misleading." Source - http://www.academia.edu/10397779/Review_of_David_Harvey_Brief_History_of_Neoliberalism . Considering this, the OP was right and the rewrite was justified. Its reversion wasnt. 219.98.254.250 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The OP is incorrect, even the source you cited specifically mentions Hayek and Friedman ("He correctly identifies Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as key theorists, but does not convey what a new departure it was for right wing political economists to suborn themselves so thoroughly to elaborate formal organizations that would hash out joint intellectual positions (MPS) or mediate the purveyance of ideas to political actors (eg.,IEA, American Enterprise Institute, Atlas, Unirule) and integrate these activities with rich and powerful patrons. Indeed, recent work reveals that academic units such as the Chicago School of economics were founded as subsidiaries of the larger project, rather than vice versa, organized with extensive outside involvement") and their ideology was not in anyway related to the Lippmann one. It even mentions various libertarian think-tanks in this quote (IEA, Atlas, etc.) and the Chicago School that was associated with libertarianism. Even the Mont Pelerin Society used the label libertarian when describing themselves. And the youtube video below, Mirowski mentions Cato.Actual neoliberal (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because it simply mentions Hayek and Friedman doesnt mean the whole ideology can be classified one way or another. One has to go through the history or atleast read the prominent scholars of that history to realise what the movement was about and how it evolved over time. There were far more influential figures in the movement like Gary Becker or George Stigler but they arent really 'mentioned'. Here's a link to Mirowski's talk where he specifically addresses this issue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBB4POvcH18 at 7:40. As for the Chicago School of economics or libertarian think-tanks, associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars. Again, going through Mirowski and Plehwe or Angus Burgin, you will read about the matroyshka doll like structure of various think tanks or the mont pelerin society's uneasy relationship with libertarians with whom they never fully identified. If you read the IEA's history, you'll read about Hayek's role and how it has acted as a mother think tank that helps spawn and fund other think tanks that spout many different positions at the same time with the common goal of misinforming the wider public, gaining support across the political spectrum and buying time for the development of their policies/market solution. This has been covered again by Mirowski (for the sake of time here's his talk - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7ewn29w-9I). If you go through other works, you'll read that historians often found through documents that Milton Friedman used to publicly say one thing but support another privately amongst mont pelerin society peers. This was a regular feature amongst the neoliberals, thought by historians to be inspired by Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing. Ignoring all of this just shows that one hasnt actually read many of the scholars cited but simply picked and chosen parts that support the popular narrative, however wrong or confused it is. Hence, the OP's phrase "this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies" . 61.85.117.45 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The OP stated that Lippmann definition is the only correct one, my comment was to counter that. "Associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars" the people at those think tanks actually used that term to label themselves, not inaccurate to use the term they used themselves. Why did MPS members describe their organization with that term? (Milton Friedman's son is a member and he uses the term to describe the group: https://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/11/mont-pelerin-society-milton-friedman.html). At the meeting in 1978, the members were using the term too (https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/mont-pelerin-1947-1978-road-libertarianism) Even the neoliberal politicians like Thatcher and Reagan used the term. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYwQxvFAIJY) "There were far more influential figures in the movement like Gary Becker or George Stigler but they arent really 'mentioned'." They were both libertarians. "As for the Chicago School of economics or libertarian think-tanks, associating them with libertarianism just demonstrates that one hasnt read through the cited scholars." So a libertarian think-tank should not be associated with libertarianism? The Chicago School was founded by libertarians (maybe you should edit this wiki page and let someone know just how wrong the entire page is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_of_economics) You're not really making a point, but just restated the same people I stated were involved, then made unsubstantiated claims like Friedman had secret "neoliberal" views (that were somehow distinct from the views he stated in public), then danced around the fact that they (the people and organizations that Mirowski cites as key to neoliberalism) actually used the label "libertarian" to describe their views. ""this article is written from the perspective of someone who associates it with a grab-bag of components from various ideologies"" there were two/three distinct forms of neoliberalism, as Foucault stated (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17508480701494218?journalCode=rcse20), they didn't agree on a number of things, Rustow, Ropke were upset by people like Mises and Hayek being associated with neoliberalism. Ordoliberalism (which was formally called neoliberalism) and MPS neoliberalism are addressed in the Routledge Handbook of Neoliberalism. It's well documented.Actual neoliberal (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Here's another instance where Mirowski is addressing a more general audience at the Majority Report show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsiT9P87J4g from 4:19 He specifically mentions how confused the different labels of libertarian,liberalism,neoliberalism,etc., are in the American context and clears it up subsequently. This seems to account for the disagreement here. 119.76.122.7 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to focus on what those who have labeled themselves neoliberals in the past, and policies continued from such advocates into the present, instead of on the far more recent confusion of what it actually means, used as a generalized epithet for a less state-controlled economy, irregardless of actual degree. How some misuse the term, or simply don't care about what it actually means but use it anyways, certainly has a place in this article, but to focus largely on that is in error; qualitative needs to take precedence over normative views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It was a Weasel word from the start so blame the "inventors" if you like. Nevertheless its a form of Liberalism and as such identical or near to the general descriptions or indictments unless that form claims to be not just a "neo" version but much more distinct like for example Social liberalism, which apriori could not be associated or described to be atleast near to Minimal state or Laissez-faire doctrines. --Kharon (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No. It would serve only to confuse readers as neoliberalism in the present clearly refers to the market-based ideas and reforms which gained traction following the collapse of the Keynesian consensus in the mid-to-late 1970s, and has almost nothing to do with any of the concepts from the 1930s. The plethora of scholarship on neoliberalism, such as that cited in this article, makes that quite clear. Discussion on the term having a different meaning decades ago is given its due weight in the article, in the appropriate sections.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Its ironic that the use of the term by critics is an equal mess of definitions. Its irritating for US-americans who know progressiv liberals framed up as "neoliberals" by republicans, who are themselves infact much closer to neoliberal policies than their accused democrats. Definition of Neoliberalism has always been and probably will always stay to be a clusterfuck. --Kharon (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not a mess of definitions at all, but a reference to the paradigm that replaced replaced post-war liberalism when Thatcher and Reagan were elected. Governments have shifted from policies of full employment, generous social benefits and deficit spending. No one claims that the new policies are internally consistent or unchanging. Neoliberals have both balanced budgets and rung up unprecedented debt. They have pursued both high and low interest rate policies. They have even raised taxes (see Read my lips: no new taxes.) If is not incumbent on scholars of neoliberalism to devise a coherent, internally consistent and unchanging ideology, but merely to describe actually existing neoliberalism. And incidentally, the cult libertarianism that many Wikipedia editors favor is not neoliberalism, despite sharing common intellectual roots, such as Hayek and Mises. TFD (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Can I just observe that this whole idea that 19th century Liberalism advocated some sort of "Nightwatchman state" minimal government sort of lassiez faire arangement is kind of nonsense mythology by modern conservatives and libertarians.. For a start the entire concept of a Nightwatchman state was coined by Nozick in the late 1970s in relationship to the somewhat fanciful "Non agression pact", another modern libertarian invention, coined by Rothbard with likely some inspiration from Ayn Rands observation about the illegitimacy of force. Rather 18th century Libertarians, whilst generally pro-market tended to also by suspicious of "Robber barron" capitalism, with in particular Adam smith advocating a government that heavily regulates capitalism to ensure fairness for the working man. Concerns reflected by other liberal figures of the era. The fact is "traditional" liberals where really not that different from the modern variant, and "Neoliberalism" really isn't much of a species of either. 2001:44B8:6117:B100:5C8:A2AA:BEB6:D3B0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Following discussion on C.J._Griffin's talk page, I would like to propose a restructure of the lead section's paragraphs:

1. The first paragraph should convey that the definition of the term is contentious (current 2nd paragraph).
2. The second paragraph should define the popular usage (synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, current 1st and 4th paragraphs).
3. The third paragraph should define the traditional usage (synonymous with ordoliberalism, current 3rd paragraph)

86.154.163.12 (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the theme of your idea. Basically, to a greater degree it covers that it is a term with varying meanings. But anything should be done carefully....there is a lot of content and sourcing in the lead which we should probably not lose, even if it is just moved to the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe it would be detrimental to the article if it was modified this way, as the first paragraph would become bloated and could lead to edit warring. It makes sense that the basic, standard definition of the term is the first paragraph, then any disputes covered in the second, the history of the term in the third, and lastly how the modern term came into being. It flows well, and was constructed after years of discussion on this very talk page. The current version has been stable for over a year without any disputes or edit warring. I say let's keep it that way.

If anything, as a last resort, the Britannica article on Neoliberalism could serve as a model, at least for the first paragraph in the lede. It's basically the modern definition like the current Wikipedia article on the subject, but with this added: "Although there is considerable debate as to the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics." Now that appears to me to be NPOV and a proper way to address the issue, and not nearly as contentious as the materials I reverted earlier. So if this issue persists - that something about the term being debatable must be inserted in the first paragraph - I'd say something very similar to this might be preferable so the lede doesn't become a mess and a hotbed of edit warring.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with an adaption of Britannica's definition. I think the third sentence does a good job of identifying the intersection of the contrasting meanings.86.154.163.12 (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that most of the leading section's content can be safety deleted. It's already well convered in the Terminology and Early History sections, with plentiful references.86.154.163.12 (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that the lede is a good summary of the basics of neoliberalism, like I mentioned above, and rather succinct given the debate surrounding the exact meaning of the term, how it evolved, and the breadth of scholarly writing on the subject. And multiple editors participated in putting that together, so I think gutting it would be out of the question without some discussion here. I would not object to adding some of the material from the Britannica article, so long as it was added for purposes of clarification without causing much bloat (referring to the lede in particular), and wasn't used to supplant what is in the article currently. I would suggest that any changes to the lede, especially the first paragraph, be discussed here first.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

By rolling back (without an edit summary) my previous edit, which did not subtract any content and aimed to clarify, you prevent a consensus being reached through editing. I would appreciate it if your statement that the current lead section is the result of consensus was clarified by a link to the discussion where current second sentence was justified, especially because it currently clashes with the Manual of Style's recommendation that the "first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific".86.154.163.12 (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

While changes can be discussed before being made, I think it is better to follow Wikipedia's be bold guideline and that it is more important to discuss removals and reversions.86.154.163.12 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edit did not intend to clarify, but inject a very obvious POV in the very beginning of the article. This issue has been dealt with before (see talk archives going back to 2015), which is why the second paragraph exists as it does. Right now this smacks of a WP:SPA with an agenda. I must say find it odd that an anonymous IP just comes out of the blue as of yesterday with not even 20 edits total, and seeks to push a POV on one specific article while having some knowledge of Wikipedia's rules.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I am indeed a single purpose account, because I do not want to associate any of my usual pseudonyms with political controversy. Single purpose accounts are not disallowed by Wikipedia (Wikipedia:VALIDALT. I had not edited Wikipedia before yesterday.Temporary political account (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

While they might not be technically disallowed, it is generally frowned upon to start an SPA for the express purpose of POV-pushing and injecting contentious materials into the lede of specific articles, or just one article. It would have been better to contribute to the discussion here rather than to radically alter the lede of the article as you did, which you had to know would lead to edit conflicts. It is a very disruptive and unconstructive way to edit this encyclopedia.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that an editing-first approach is unconstructive. New users are literally encouraged to edit first in Wikipedia:Be bold. Temporary political account (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you are engaging in unconstructive and contentious POV-pushing. This is generally a no no. I have altered the article per my suggestion above. I'm hoping this puts the issue to rest as the debate over the meaning is mentioned in the first paragraph and strongly adheres to NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

While it is fair to say that I am POV-pushing, I disagree with the claim that I am being unconstructive. I think the current lead section represents a breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have listed this on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests Temporary political account (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

It is unconstructive to add what you did to the lede which would obviously trigger edit conflicts given it was highly POV and done without discussion, and altered the entire lede section which has been constructed after years of debate and discussion on the talk page. Given your reasons for creating your SPA which you discussed above, to hide your identity from political controversy, it is apparent to me that you knew as much. However, I have added the point that the term is subject of academic debate in the first paragraph, much like in the Britannica article, but this is not enough apparently? It adheres to NPOV, much like in the Britannica article on the same subject, and is clearly sufficient in making the point you wish to be made. It makes little sense to simply smear the term as an epithet in the very first paragraph which is clearly what you wish to do, which places UNDUE WEIGHT on the term being a pejorative, or a swear word, etc. That's not the way the first paragraph of the term is constructed on the Britannica article, and for good reason, and that's not the way it should be constructed here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making that edit. I now accept that the lead section conforms to neutrality.

As a separate issue, I think that the lead section ought to be slimmed down.Temporary political account (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that issue might be put to bed finally to the satisfaction of the parties involved. As for the other issue, the lede is not bloated IMO, but quite succinct in terms of being a summary of the concept. I would recommend, like I did above, that any trimming be discussed here first. If it is determined that some materials are to be removed, I would urge that the citations which follow such materials, which are all RS and mostly academic, be moved to more appropriate locations within the body of the article and not removed entirely.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Liberalism has a very different (and in some areas opposite) meaning in the us VS. elsewhere. This article presumes the non-US definition of liberalism when using it as a basis to explain neoliberalism. I don't know if there is a US definition / meaning of neoliberalism; if so it is not covered in the article. Probably a little extra explanation in these areas would make it more informative/ less confusing for everyday US readers. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In the US, "liberalism" used in popular or political discourse almost always refers to some kind of progressivism, where as in most other countries around the world it's more commonly associated with economic liberalism. The term neoliberalism is rarely used in popular discourse in the United States. This is mentioned in the article already in the "Current usage" sub-section.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it goes deeper than that. This article uses liberalism as a foundation for defining neoliberalism, but liberalism is a word that has a completely different meaning in the US where it means expansion of government including taxes, social programs and regulation. My thought would be a sentence or two to clarify this. In essence that "liberalism" in the article refers to a term which is not the common meaning of the term in the US or refers to what US poly-sci people would refer to as "classical liberalism." To say it shorter, in this article, "liberalism" refers to classical liberalism rather than the common meaning of "liberalism" in the US. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. Perhaps in the terminology section? Do you have sources?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have a source that covers that the common US meaning of liberal is different than the rest of the world. I'll go look. But here we're talking about what clarifying which meaning statements in this article are using....sources would not cover a wiki article. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There probably should be a separate entry for the US meaning of Neoliberalism, related to social liberalism as opposed to economic liberalism which is the meaning in this article entry. The last paragraph in the "Origins" section really doesn't belong here and confuses the two words and their meanings. Social Neoliberalism is completely different than Economic Neoliberalism. PaulRaunette (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there significant reliable sources that elaborate on the differences between so-called "social neoliberalism" and "economic neoliberalism"? It is my understanding that neoliberalism is essentially an economic ideology embraced by both major US political parties to one extent or another (i.e., the administrations of Reagan and Clinton especially), hence the paradigm shift in economic policy starting in the late 1970s and especially the 1980s. This occurred not only in the US, but also Chile under Pinochet, Britain under Thatcher, and much of the world following the collapse of the socialist bloc in the 1990s.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

And social policies attributed to neoliberal reforms are also a response to economic changes, such as the expansion of mass incarceration in the US. It's seemingly a social policy, but according to Wacquant and others, its motivations were to contain the fallout from the imposition of other neoliberal economic policies which increased precarity and marginalization of the working population and the urban poor (who were also an obstacle to rising gentrification). The expansion of prison privatization, including privatization of services within public facilities, could be seen as social and economic.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Returning to this discussion, there are major chronological problems about the use of "neoliberalism" prior to the 1990s and the self-identification of individuals as neoliberals. There are very few sources cited from the 1990s. The vast majority of sources are from the 21st Century and appear to retroactively characterize persons and policies as neoliberal. AusJeb (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jgallaga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

c.f. simple.neoliberalism

Please see my comment, contradiction? in simple.neoliberalism. Hedles (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hayek and the history of the term neoliberal

Hayek used the term 'neo-liberal' to describe the gaggle of ideas coming from students of von Mises, including ordoliberals, the pro-market economists of the LSE and the Chicago School in an essay A Rebirth of Liberalism, in a 1952 piece in The Freeman. This was in the run up to the founding of the Mont Pelerin Society and since that cross-section of views isn't too far from the make-up of the founders of the MPS, it adds some weight ot the idea that neoliberalism is a term for the ideology of the MPS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarias19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jgallaga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jack.snell29. Peer reviewers: Annabelbonar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Unintelligible Jargon Strikes Again

What the hell is "a pejorative valence" ? Academic gobbledygook... Someone wiser than me please translate and rephrase... Christian B Martin (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It means it's offensive. People who defend neoliberalism usually don't identify with the term. 170.37.244.36 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Too extensive Criticism section

I believe that the section on criticism is too extensive for the standards of ideological wiki pages and that some aspects of it can even be considered POV pushing. I suggest we take a look at the format of other criticism paragraphs or the standards of criticism published by Wikipedia to make any changes that are necessary to make it in line with others like it. (unsigned, by Lmagoutas Sept 24, 2021)

I agree. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It is probably the most reliably sourced section of the article. I think it is fine as is. However, if the Capitalism page serves as an example, its criticism section was broken off into its own article recently so as not to purge reliability sourced content, with a short summary and link to the new article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing (or sourcability) is a requirement for all content. So it is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. Nevertheless, that separation might be a good idea. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The material is also long standing, so arbitrary deletion seems unnecessary. Another solution is to integrate the material into other sections and remove the criticism section altogether, or just leave it as is, depending on what others say here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose the "integrate" idea; we shouldn't let an ideology's opponents define that ideology (especially not an ideology as mainstream as one which some say includes Obama, Merkel, and other popular politicians). A short Criticism summary here, and a split to a full article, would be the best choice. DFlhb (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Capitalism article should serve as an example of a proper criticism section for any article on here. I've raised serious objections to the mere existence of a critique on that article, which was met with stiff resistance from an editor who's been laboring under the impression that capitalism is "just a philosophy" in league with socialism, and thus the same editing rules apply (in other words, the article is not approached by editors as a typical economics article, for which much stricter sourcing requirements have been determined via consensus). The "Criticism" section on that article is still there, and is supported by an assortment of dubious sources, including Marxist polemics published in the 19th Century.

In fact, economics is the only subject on this encyclopedia that is treated as a field with no experts, where the opinions of professional, mainstream economists are sometimes presented alongside anti-capitalist polemicists, dilletante journalists, philosophers and political partisans who've never been trained in economics and are not recognized as experts in this particular field (which is what happens when you declare something "just a philosophy" - almost anything goes in terms of sourcing). Even the article on the Nobel Prize in Economics contains a "critique" that implies the award is not a legitimate Nobel Prize.

It is my opinion that the ways in which economic subjects are presented on here (not all, but several) are miseducating readers about what mainstream economists understand about economic behavior and how they arrive at those conclusions (which is through math and data analysis, not polemics). On the Capitalism article there is no separation between the discipline of economics, a theory-driven social science, and fields like political economy, a branch of philosophy. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Chile

The summary of the effect of the neoliberal policies in Chile states that "Additionally, the percentage of the Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985". I was unable to find any confirmation of the 17% and 45% values outside of the referenced book, which I have not read. The few data sources I've been able to find list the Chilean poverty rate at approximately 28.5% in 1969, and I am unble to verify the 45% value. Based on the remaining criticism below, I'm doubtful that these values are accurate.

However, the most important criticism of this statement is that, even if the numbers are accurate, the author both cherry-picks and falsely attributes the data. He chose a start and end point that are deliberately chosen to show a negative effect on poverty rate.

Why did he chose 1969 as his starting point? Because it was the lowest poverty level in Chile prior to the neoliberal reforms. The problem with choosing 1969 is that it was 4 years prior to the Pinoche coup and 6 years prior to the implementation of neoliberal reforms. And the intervening years between 1969 and the coup of 1973 was a period of economic disaster and collapse. This economic collapse was the reason for the coup in the first place. The author is a Chilean economist and must know this. Therefore the decision to use 1969 is a deliberate attempt to attribute the damage caused by the Allende government to the neoliberal reforms.

As for the end point, 1985 had the highest level of poverty in the neo-liberal period due to the economic crisis of 1982. But the 1982 collapse was caused by Chile pegging its currency to the dollar against the recommendations of the neoliberals.

My recommendation is to remove this criticism or at least point out that the criticism is questionable at best, particularly due to chosing 1968 as the basis for the criticism. 2600:1700:C80:39C0:F14F:77FE:6503:7EF0 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Without having checked that book yet, I'm also extremely skeptical of the idea that "neoliberalism ruined Chile" would be representative of the scholarly consensus. DFlhb (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)