Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Split the article?

This article is becoming a mess, and it's no suprise why this is - the term 'neoliberal' itself is both disputed (some use it as a purely pejorative term for anyone they don't like) and undefended (there are no self-identifiying neoliberals to ask what it means). Personally I think that, given the totally different meaning of the modern usage (in as much as it has any meaning other than "boo! capitalists!") and the original usage (which was a third way between socialism and classical liberalism - i.e., a softer, limited form of economic liberalism with substantial government intervention), this article should be split into two articles to deal with each term, with perhaps one article being simply a re-direct to capitalism, which is basically what critics of "neoliberalism" are protesting against.

An example of where this situation is becoming ridiculous is the "support" and "opposition" sections. There are no real examples of genuine "support" given in the support section, but the "opposition" section includes a long section in which only the essentially meaningless, pejorative usage of "neoliberalism" is used. Are they referring to the old usage? No - in the end all they are criticising is capitalism. FOARP (talk) 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The article and the concept are a mess, in part because historically it has had two very different meanings... cwmacdougall 16:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

@FOARP. That "mess" just the way it is. Pointing towards political use of the term in your way, by only assuming term reception as "criticising capitalism", is just an "selective political" view itself, for what it's worth, as likely revealing your own inability to take an NPOV view. Skipping the factual massive - you could obviously also substitute massive with very critical - scientific reception, is making your point(s) just the same you seek to condemn. Populism. --Kharon (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's selective and NPOV then give some examples of people who use the term to describe themselves. Every use I've seen is by people critical of what they call "neo-liberalism", and there is no consistency in what they label that. This is very unusual; in nearly every other case I can think of - communism, fascism, liberalism - there are people who use the term to describe themselves, who can be asked what they think it means. "Neo-liberalism" is a kind of straw man term, which much of the time appears to mean little more than "whatever-I-don't-like". The label being confused and contradictory, a mess, is the result, as is the article. cwmacdougall 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So adapting your logic "Dictator" is also a "straw man term" because you can hardly find a person confessing to be one? In my logic it seems much more a consequence of the massive criticism, that persons avoid confessing being just that, not a prove there are no such people. --Kharon (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "neoliberalism" is widely used around the world to describe a form of political and economic organization in which capitalism penetrates deeply into social life. This includes privatization of public resources, such as utilities and education. Although neoliberalism is characteristic of today's capitalism, it is not an inevitable or inherent part of capitalism and is thus distinct. I'm not sure how many people will admit to defending this model, but it is nevertheless a major issue in the word today. We would be doing our readers a great disservice by making this information harder to find. groupuscule (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It is widely used around the world to mean a wide variety of different and conflicting policies disliked by the Left. Individually these would each be defended, but together they are a mess. For example I have seen the term used to describe both Tony Blair and Milton Friedman, yet they agree on almost nothing. I have seen people talk about "neo-liberal authoritarianism", which for most of the alleged neo-liberals mentioned in the article would be a contradiction with whatever term they would use to describe themselves. It is a straw-man term with no clear meaning. cwmacdougall 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Blair and Friedman did agree on an overlapping set of neoliberal policies. In the lead of Wikipedia's article Premiership of Tony Blair, you will find the following: "In domestic government policy, Blair significantly increased public spending on health and education while also introducing controversial market-based reforms in these areas." Friedman also promoted markets within an education system. Although the most of today's "education reform" movement can be described as neo-liberal, this is not the only perspective nor even the only capitalist perspective on education. You are entitled to your opinion that this concept is not useful—but then perhaps you would leave the article to those who think they can present useful information (based on thousands of scholarly articles and tens of thousands of articles from the popular press) in a coherent way. groupuscule (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don´t think that splitting the article would make it easier to present the subject.

Neoliberalism is an Essentially contested concept in the way of "terminological contestation: scholars harbor divergent preferences for alternative terms to refer to a single underlying concept ... Neoliberalism is a term that some, but not all, scholars use to refer to a variety of concepts whose unifying characteristic is the free market. For the concept of free-market policies, critics prefer the term neoliberal, while proponents refer to “orthodox policies” or other synonyms invoking the mainstream nature of these reforms. To refer to the concept of a free-market paradigm, proponents use the term “neoclassical” instead of neoliberal. For the concept of a free-market ideology, those who espouse such views typically prefer the unqualified term “liberal.”" (in Europe) or libertarian (in the US). Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan. --Pass3456 (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberalism as "pejorative" word and neoliberalism and other political "neos"

As far as the use and the existence of the term "neoliberalism" I can understand why some people argue here that it is done in some cases in a "pejorative" form. But even if a word is used "pejoratively" it clearly deserves treatment in this encyclopedia if that usage is of such wide use as the word "neoliberalism". On the other hand the word "neoliberalism" is not the only "neo" word that exists in political discussion and political science. For example there exist "Neo-Nazism", "Neo-fascism", "Neo-conservative" and "Neo-Marxism" also. In those cases, just as in much of the usage of the word "neoliberalism", the meaning that is put forward is as simple as saying that this is a new form or an updated form of____.--Eduen (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that, as far as I'm aware, the word is ONLY used in the pejorative sense. "Neoconservatives" happily call themselves that, so you can ask them what it means. But "Neo-liberals" don't, so you can't. And in the pejorative sense it is used to describe a wide range of conflicting views; it would be OR to try to remove that conflict - it should just be noted. So at the very least we should only use the word to describe someone, when there is a source calling him "neo-liberal"... cwmacdougall 19:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard and Neoliberalism

I want to support the inclusion of US economic liberal Murray Rothbard and "anarcho-capitalism" in this article with these references. "What is Neoliberalism?" by Dag Einar Thorsen and Amund Lie Department of Political Science University of Oslo. These authors state that "Perhaps it is better, after all, to view neoliberalism not as one distinct political philosophy, but as a convenient description for an amorphous set of political theories instead. Such theories range from Rothbard‟s „anarcho-capitalism‟, which includes the belief that the state ought to be abolished altogether, to the „classical liberalism‟ of Mises and Hayek, who firmly believes that a strong but largely inactive commonwealth is a necessary precondition for social life, as well as individual and commercial liberty." Pg. 14. Rothbard is mentioned in this article many times and is clearly included as an important neoliberal author and theorist.

Another reference is this one "Normative Neo-Liberalism: Rand and Rothbard" by David F. B. Tucker. This reference also suggests we should also mention US fiction writer and political theorist Ayn Rand in this article alongside Rothbard.

Those who are surprised by these authors labeled as "neoliberal" should not really be so since clearly what Rothbard proposes in his "anarcho-capitalism" is just a more radical version of the social arragement proposed by people like Friedman and Hayek. As such while these latter authors propose keeping the state only as far as courts, police and the military Rothbard goes as far as to propose to privatize even those things. Clearly what unites them both is the view of deregulated "laissez faire" capitalism. The followers of Rothbard economics in the US, if they decide to go to party politics, they tend to go to the Libertarian Party. The wikipedia article on that organization says, with the support of good references, that within that organization there exists a "faction" who supports "anarcho-capitalism".--Eduen (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good; I drop my objection. You've found a source calling Rothbard "Neo-liberal", so site it, and include him, and perhaps also your source's point that neoliberalism is "an amorphous set of political theories"... cwmacdougall 20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As amorfous as other political ideologies such as marxism or conservatism. Within marxism for example you can find both murderous crude authoritarianism like Stalin and libertine hedonistic anti-authoritarianism like Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Or in the conserative US republican party one can find both religious fundamentalists and yuppie libertine playboys. As far as neoliberalism worldwide we will find also a lot of plural expressions of the same thing. In latin america neoliberal policies were implemented in the 1990s by populist caudillos like Carlos Menem and Alberto Fujimori as well as by military dictatorships like that of Augusto Pinochet. In the muslim world islamic politicians and parties can implement neoliberalism as egyptian scholar Samir Amin has argued.--Eduen (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the Marxists all call themselves "Marxists" and most of the Conservatives call themselves "Conservatives", making them and their views easier to identify, but no one calls himself "neo-liberal"... cwmacdougall 07:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

well the huge amount of literature on "neoliberalism" is much more than enough to guarantee that subject a wikipedia article. But neoliberalism is not just a label of books. Its relevance is so big that it is used everywhere in mainstream politics (maybe except in mainstream US politics where they still work with the old XIX century distinction between conservatives and liberals). As such candidates in places like europe and latin america run on explicit "anti-neoliberal" platforms and win elections as has been the case of the current latin american "pink tide", as some have decided to call the current wave of latin american center-left governments. This is an old discussion for this article. Hopefully we will not turn this into internet forum talk.--Eduen (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I wrote: the term is widely used by "anti-neoliberals", and so it merits coverage. But it is not used by proponents, making it more difficult to know what it really means. cwmacdougall 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

Reference 112: ("Workers' wages overall lower due too lack...") - the source at OECD website does not exist!) Krzysiek77 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It does, it just moved. I've corrected the reference link. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There is not enough material in the criticism section on centre-right and other right-wing criticisms

Currently the criticism section is focused on centre-left and left-wing criticisms of neoliberalism. But it does not include centre-right and right-wing criticisms of neoliberalism. There are plenty of examples ranging from centre-right criticisms from progressive conservative figures like British PM Cameron's advisor Phillip Blond; to Catholic right-wing criticisms of neoliberalism; to far-right criticisms of neoliberalism.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition

I have reverted the opening paragraphs of this article back to a previous edit in 2012. I have chosen to do so in that the previous definition is not one that was shared with any other sources or dictionaries that I have read, and does not reflect the general application or meaning of the word in a modern context. Similarly "awful" used to mean something that inspired awe or wonder, but now is defined as something that is terrible or unpleasant. Additionally the definition appeared to draw all its support from a single Harvard University Press publication written by Philip Mirowski, whose personal reflections on neoliberalism differ wildly from the majority of other sources that I have encountered.

It also lacked citation, for instance the following: The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s which conventional wisdom of the time tended to blame on unfettered capitalism, and a simultaneous concern with avoiding the inhumanity of National Socialism. In the decades that followed, neoliberal theory tended to be at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

The above appeared to be structured like a personal reflection on the development neoliberalism, none of which was supported by any external sources or reference to any particular individuals; I also struggled to find anything that associated neoliberalism with the social market economy, rather the two are seen as precise opposites in the context of mordern liberalism.

Hayek79 (talk) 13:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the rebalance, but it still isn't quite right. First, the old centrist meaning has been used as recently as 1979 by Foucault, so it's still live. Second, the most common current meaning is not Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, but encompassing views much more interventionist that theirs. It is often used in the UK to refer to Tony Blair's Labour government, under which there was a vast increase in regulation, replacing state ownership with state management through regulation. That would certainly be and was opposed by Classical Liberals. The current meanings are confused and contradictory, in large part because the word is mainly used by critics; this is unusual among political terms, most of which are used with pride by proponents to describe themselves. cwmacdougall 14:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for us to draft a definition that would encompass both usages of the term? At present it seems that it is a label that is applied more to liberalised economies than regulated economies; in which case could use by opponents be described as a misuse of the phrase? In my experience neoliberalism was more a conservative reaction to the social-liberalism of Lloyd George that replaced traditional classical liberal thought in the early 20th Century. However I feel it would be more helpful to refer to both the centrist and the free market approach in the definition since the word has come to mean both. Hayek79 (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of Neoliberalism has changed in time quite a lot. To understand the term one needs to know the development. Alexander Rüstow, Walter Eucken, Wilhelm Röpke et. alt. were proponents of a strong state rejecting laissez-faire as the cause of the Great Depression. They called their theory Neoliberalism (neo=new in the sense of improved liberalism). Nowadays Neoliberalism is associated with Friedman and Hayek which never used the term Neoliberalism to describe there theories. Unfortunately it is that complicated. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edit was helpful, however I have reinserted the following Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of economic liberalisation and its advocates, in that it pre-existed my edit this afternoon (GMT) and is consistent with the "expanded definition" in the following sections."Hayek79 (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The definition says that Neoliberalism is a political philosophy. What kind of political philosophy is this that has no political philosophers? There are only third party sources for this supposed ultra free market ideology, i.e. someone that is not Neoliberal himself says that neoliberalism is this, this and that. The only definitions that have ideologues that named their ideology Neoliberalism are that of Rüstow and later that of some Democrats. It should be clear in the wikipedia article that when the term is used for the free market liberalism it is only a label refered like this only by the opponents of liberalism (not in the American sense) and not something that has ideologues that explain what neoliberalism is etc and when we refer to it as a political philosophy it is in the center left of the political spectrum as were those that actually had an ideology called Neoliberalism. Wikipedia should be objective and not reproducing its authors biases. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted DagonAmigasOS' edit, which was unreferenced and seemed to suggest that neo-liberalism is a state interventionist ideology. Also, you moved the lead into the past tense for reasons that are unclear. KingHiggins (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well if you have read the Terminology section then you would see that the only political philosophy that called itself neoliberal was a State interventionist with all the references you need. The reason I used past tense is that the neoliberal philosophy is a a thing of the past but I wont stand on that. There are no original sources about this so called extreme market philosophy. What it is in its current usage is a label. People who are not neoliberal themselves call other people neoliberal who don't call themselves that way. This distinction between political philosophy and label is real and it should be made clear instead of being hidden.--DagonAmigaOS (talk) 10:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

...as shop owners started to predict the rate of increase in the money supply, rendering the government action useless. Please preent the exact passage and refs you are referring to in order to help me understand your position. KingHiggins (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Content

The sentence "Once the new meaning of neoliberalism was established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused directly into the English-language study of political economy." is in the article 3 times. 71.52.54.28 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Brent Hansen

This Article Reads Like It Was Written on Mises.org

This article consistently and incessantly refers to the Austrian School, Anarcho-capitalism, and all other manner of pet Mises.org issues. Hayek is of relevance if too often brought up. The rest of the mises idols are not of relevance at all and should not be peppered throughout the article. A brief mention is sufficient for those who had so little to do with the movement.

It doesn't mention the American School of Economics that was dominant prior, or the evolution of the American School to neoclassical synthesis and the resultant neoliberal consensus (Washington Consensus).

Moreover, it doesn't talk at all about how elements of neoliberal thought evolved from social liberalism. In fact, it's in the conservative portal and is portrayed as a conservative philosophy. Many traditionalist conservatives would not agree.

Put simply, this article was written 100% from a libertarian perspective, and is completely inaccurate.

Moreover it is rambling and full of original research and primary sources.

One would get a more useful overview of the topic by going to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neoliberalism.

Wikipedia should hold itself to a higher standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.12.250.236 (talk) 07:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly has too much Mises, but I think that is a result of the confusion of the Left-wingers who invented the term "neoliberalism", jumbling together all manner of non-Socialist schools, not the result of some pro-Mises bias. The difficulty we have is that that confusion is in the sources, so it is difficult to disentangle. cwmacdougall 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This reads more like an opinion piece than a wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.124.98.80 (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are still lots of indications of bias in this piece; I particularly notice a number of statements that make objective truth claims about neoliberal economics that are something less than objective. For example: "Friedman's chief argument about neoliberalism can be described as a consequentialist libertarian one: that the reason for adopting minimal government interference in the economy is for its beneficial consequences, and not any ideological reason. At the heart of economic neoliberalism are various theories that prove the economic neoliberal ideology." Are the beneficial consequences of neoliberal economics actually settled fact without reference to ideology, or is the insistence that it is objectively beneficial an ideological claim? Do the various theories at the heart of neoliberal economics "prove" the economic liberal ideology, or do they merely support it? I am no economist, but I do know something about language and logic, and these kinds of statements seem to be pushing assumptions from a specific point of view. SpankyMac (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that line and what I was trying to express was the view that one group of neoliberals seemed to view that the beneficial consequences of economics prove the economic liberal ideology. In other words, they had framed the debate from ideological grounds into grounds of fact, so that anyone who disagreed with them was an idiot, not just with a difference of opinion. Of course, that framing is in itself potential evidence of bias, which I tried to point out later in the expanded definition section. So, no, there was no intended bias. Aphenine (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

5.4 Corrupted Neoliberalism

I feel that this section, with the exception of "5.45 Globalisation", requires citation; otherwise would anyone be offended if I were to revise several of the paragraphs to improve the balance of the article? There are areas of the text, for instance The failure of property rights means that individuals can't protect ownership of their resources and control what happens to them, or prevent others from taking them away. This usually stifles free enterprise and results in preferential treatment for those who can., that could do with rephrasing to make them less partisan. I believe this falls under NPV, but I'm not particularly experienced so I might not know.

Would it be possible for us to create a "Criticism" section, something that many articles have, where the various criticisms of neoliberalism can be explained? Because that's what I feel this section was intended to be originally. Hayek79 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly the section seems biased (in spite of its own declaration to the contrary). But I don't think it could be reworked to be in line with WP policy or spirit. That's because the whole thing is based on Original Research. Without any sense of irony, the section claims to be "unbiased" and then goes on to elucidate an entirely original POV about certain things called "neoliberalism" actually being against the spirit of "neoliberalism". What does and does not count as "true" neoliberalism of course being entirely the opinion of whoever wrote the section. The whole section is a personal essay and given the title it couldn't be otherwise: what possible neutral, objective measure is there of whether something is "true" or "corrupted" neoliberalism? The term itself is basically a pejorative, used only by its opponents and applied broad-brush to a huge range of things, from free trade to free schools. My point is it doesn't matter what we do, the section will always be POV and OR. That said, I do see the problem with a "Criticism" section, that too would inevitably be POV, since because "neoliberalism" is such a broad-brush term we'd have to take a POV about what it is we were criticizing. The whole problem is that, in spite of the assumption to the contrary constantly made in this article, "neoliberalism" nowadays is not a coherent ideology advocated by anyone but really just a framing tool that some people use to criticize a bunch of things they don't like, and which they perceive as forming an ideology. Nonetheless I have removed what I thought to be the most flagrant POV from the section, and tagged it OR.--146.90.104.56 (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say that I wrote that section originally. In hindsight, I think you're entirely right about it being too much original research. I worried about it at the time (see archive of talk) and now I'm a bit older and wiser, I do think that I went too far. I'm glad it's being fixed. I think I'd agree that the section now sticks out like a sore thumb, but I feel, honestly, that at the time I wrote it, the article was in such a mess that a separate section just trying to get to the bottom of the differing ideas and going back to the original sources was a good idea. I think the article has improved a lot since then and there's a lot I missed. I read the introduction now and I wince.

I just thought you might like to know that, since you're having a go at POV, that I also wrote the bit above that, where I'm getting slated for being biased towards Mises and right wing ideology. I think it's amusing as hell that you're slating me for left wing bias :) When I wrote the corrupted neoliberalism, section, like you pointed out, I was making a point about how, if there is an economic type of neoliberalism, then there must be cases where that didn't quite happen. So corrupted refers to the "true" neoliberalism of economic neoliberalism section. I thought I'd made that really, really clear, but plainly not :( I don't know if changing it to criticism really helps and it's certainly not a criticism of all of neoliberalism as you pointed out, because that would involve me making a value judgement about what neoliberalism is, which I wouldn't and hopefully didn't. Aphenine (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Just litle notice and hint for those who are concerned: Russia in nineties was hardly neoliberal/libertarian/liberal since it had state socialistic healthcare, state free education system etc, huge amount of different subsidies including free public busses, utilities bills etc. etc. etc.. It had huge amount of state property and state companies, and of course Russia still had all those soviet bureaucrats and "red directors" (term widely used in Russia for ineffective, procrastinating ex-soviet factory CEO). So we can hardly consider it as example of results of liberalis/neoliberalism/libertarianism etc. 89.179.12.252 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

The last sentence of the third paragraph of initial definition is wrong. Instead of The term "neoliberal" is now used mainly by those who are critical of legislative initiatives that push for free trade, deregulation, enhanced privatization, and an overall reduction in government control of the economy. there should be The term "neoliberal" is now used mainly by those who are in favor of legislative initiatives that push for free trade, deregulation, enhanced privatization, and an overall reduction in government control of the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilseptij (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Unilseptij, the sentence isn't wrong. It is pointing out that the term "neoliberal" is a pejorative. When the sentence states it is "used mainly by those who are critical of legislative initiatives that push for free trade, deregulation, enhanced privatization" it doesn't mean used to describe themselves, it means used to describe their opponents, i.e. those critical of initiatives promoting free trade and privatization use the term "neoliberal" to describe the proponents of those things, but the proponents of those things usually do not describe themselves as "neoliberal".--146.90.245.55 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

History section

The history section could do with some cleanup and rewriting. It also needs sources to support several statements. I'll comment on several sentences one by one:
"In the 1930s, the mood was decidedly anti-liberal" --> what mood? In what way was it "anti-liberal"? Also, what kind of liberalism is refered to here? In what country was "the mood" anti-liberal?
"To join forces a group of 25 liberals" --> to join forces sounds like a phrase that came from a comic book, not an encyclopedic entry. It should be clarified as to what the aim of the colloque was. Did the attendants want to form a single movement propagating neo-liberalism? Did they want to form a collective in order to increase their visibility and increase the impact of their efforts?
"At the Colloque Walter Lippmann, the fundamental differences between 'true neoliberals' around Rüstow and Lippmann on the one hand and old school liberals around Mises and Hayek on the other were already quite visible". Just what is a 'true neoliberal'? It's unclear whether this is somebody propagating a laissez-faire mentality or a Third Way mentality. Also, how were the differences visible?
"After a few years the insurmountable differences between old liberals and the neoliberals become unbearable". This should be clarified. What exactly happened? In what way did it show that the differences became unbearable? What concrete action made it clear?
"Rüstow was bitter that Mises still adhered to a version of liberalism that Rüstow thought had failed spectacularly". How do we know Rüstow was bitter? Is there a source supporting it? Again, in what way did it show Rüstow was bitter?

The section makes value judgements and uses words that may seem to describe something but actually don't, like "join forces", "the mood was anti-liberal", etc. These sentences may at first glance appear valid, but when you think about them, they are not precise and leave much room for debate. SeraphinMr (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to make some clarifications [1]. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Shock Doctrine an unreliable source for this article?

User:Spumuq has reverted this edit claiming that Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine is not a reliable source. I dispute this, not only is her book a popular work on neoliberalism cited on myriad Wikipedia articles, it is featured in the very bibliography of the article, as it should be. As such, I feel that her book constitutes Wikipedia:RS and the edit should be restored. Not only that, but the information is relevant to that section of the article. To avoid an edit war, I will not revert to the original edit but instead attribute the statement to her book, and not use Wikipedia's voice. I hope this resolves the issue. If not, I will have to seek out other sources to back up the statement, of which I'm sure there are many.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly a popular work in some quarters, and I know that it fits your perspective, but that doesn't make it a reliable source. If so many articles cite it, that means a lot more articles need to be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine then. I have modified the content and added what certainly constitutes Wikipedia:RS as I said I would do if the last modification did not resolve the issue. This does not mean I agree with your assertion that Klein's book is not RS, not by a long shot.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to include Starve the beast, which is a simmilar concept that is much broader documented. --Kharon (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

lede

I'm removing the comment on Monthly Review being a socialist publication from the lede and instead adding a wikilink to its article. Currently, it smacks of POV and is off topic as this is an article on neoliberalism, not Monthly Review or socialist publications. I post this here to avoid an edit war on the subject.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good solution. --Kharon (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a good solution. «Avoid an edit war» does not mean «C.J. Griffin can do even more reverts». Spumuq (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason the page is semi-protected is because the vandal I was reverting was using multiple IP's. It's interesting to note that a member of the counter-vandalism unit restores the edits, thus in a way aiding him in circumventing the block.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Noone is NPOV, be it some marxist magazine, the New York Times, some Scientist or Journalist. If you want to put ideological tags on opinions we need to tag everything and everyone to atleast formaly stay NPOV. I highly doubt this will be possible tho anyway because then there will be editwars around the tags. So NPOV is served best if we dont even start ideologically tagging relevant opinions to the lemma. --Kharon (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"capitalism with the gloves off" is a point of view not a fact and to be exact is a socialist point of view, not pointing it by hiding it behind a link that this comes from his socialist perspective is dishonest or remove his point of view all together or point where his coming from. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Again. That way we will end up in endless fights about taggings of opinions. --Kharon (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Weasel paragraph

"Additionally, many theories were developed which showed that the free market would produce the socially optimum equilibrium with regard to production of goods and services, such as the fundamental theorems of welfare economics and general equilibrium theory, which helped prove further that government intervention could only result in making society worse off (see Pareto efficient)."

This is a particularly loaded paragraph. I am hesitant to make an account just to make an edit, that seems to defy the point of Wikipedia. This paragraph definitely needs work though - just needs a more impartial person to do it than would be possible from this IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.198.189 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

IMHO "theories.[...].which showed" is a bad choice of words. Such theories are shurely part of Neoliberalism but they are very disputed. I changed that formulation now. I didnt write these chapters so id say whoever wants this to be part of the article is invited to add some sources. Else anyone else can delete it if he wants. --Kharon (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Pseudo-intellectual nonsense

"This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (June 2013)"

If the piece is supposed to be about what other academics making lesser contributions have opined about primary sources, targeted for lazy readers, this would be a meaningful and useful assertion. But that is not what this article or section is about. It is about seminal intellectual contributions, that is, the primary sources, to our knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.92.182 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions by 5.55.22.136

The recent additions from this IP address are very similar to those from nearly identical IP addresses, such as 5.55.53.225, 5.55.152.48, 5.55.144.51 5.55.50.175. The last time this happened the article had to be protected. I'm reverting.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Smearing academic sources as "leftists" w/o evidence to undermine content

Recent additions by 24.141.7.227 and restored by User:Spumuq seek to smear academic sources as "leftists" in a clear attempt to marginalize what is being said. Here is the original:

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen as the roots of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.

Here is the 24.141.7.227 version (with no WP:RS cited):

The transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies, and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s is seen by leftists as the root of financialization with the Financial crisis of 2007–08 claimed to be one of the ultimate results.

This is clearly WP:undue POV. I attempted to prevent a possible edit war by converting "leftists" to "some academics," but nevertheless it was reverted again to the 24.141.7.227 version by User:Spumuq, which he ironically said was "editorialising" in his edit summary. This is clearly nonsense, as the editorializing is being done by those besmirching academic sources they don't agree with as "leftist" without a shred of evidence to back it up. As such I'm reverting to this version which adheres to WP:NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is actually mainstream opinion today. Hardly anyone still belives in Hayek's idea(l) of "natural self regulating"-markets. --Kharon (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I would even say it is common sense and, by itself, descriptive rather than pejorative. --PanchoS (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and their advocates."

Is this a fair line in the summary? The definition sources http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12116-009-9040-5 which has the line in abstract: "We show that neoliberalism has undergone a striking transformation, from a positive label coined by the German Freiberg School to denote a moderate renovation of classical liberalism, to a normatively negative term associated with radical economic reforms in Pinochet’s Chile."

I feel this isn't the same as "general condemnation".

09:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Passerby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.182.61 (talk)

"mostly used as" is different from "is". So if you disagree you do prove the point that not everyone sees this term as "general condemnation". However you most likely know that a majority has a negative understanding of Neoliberalism today. --Kharon (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this was stressed, since in my experience the word is entirely used by critics, I have not seen a single free-market advocate describe himself as a "neoliberal". J1812 (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is generally used by critics, which makes the article not neutral, because people with positive things to say use different language. Spumuq (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Public Realtions" (to point this out diplomatically) was always a big part of Neoliberalism. The sweettalking and spindoctoring is one major aspect of Neoliberalism. Very likely simply because it was and is payed for very well aka so many "Institutes" exist, funded by big Industry or Superrich, that offer an "fitting PR"-service. You are very wellcome to propose some examples for inclusion - to make the article "neutral". --Kharon (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

«funded by big Industry or Superrich», this sounds like a conspiracy theory. Spumuq (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So unless you want to provide evidence for "conspiracy theory" i propose you only add opinions of "people with positive things to say" about Neoliberalism that are without doubt not «funded by big Industry or Superrich». --Kharon (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This sentence now reads: "Today the term neoliberalism is mostly used pejoratively as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies, such as privatization, fiscal austerity, and deregulation." I replaced "open markets" w/ "fiscal austerity" because neither of the two references given cite "open markets" as characteristics of neoliberalism, while both cite fiscal austerity or expanded language e.g. "reduced public expenditure on social services, etc". Additionally we can't say neoliberalism is a pejorative if it refers to open markets; that's like saying motherhood is a pejorative. Fashoom (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Very good solution, thanks Fashoom.--PanchoS (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I second that.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of Huffington Post blog article

This edit reverted the addition of a concise, albeit critical presentation, of several typical policies promoted by neoliberals.
The author is Sean D. Illing a freelance writer based in Baton Rouge, LA. He teaches political theory at Louisiana State University.
The piece is The Earth is Too Big to Fail.
As an official blog on a mainstream news media, I assume it meets RS, and the author is an academic working in the relevant field.
Opinions on the reliability of the source? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you attribute the statement to the blog's author, I don't see any problem with it being included (see: WP:NEWSBLOG).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I forgot to attribute that, only adding quotation marks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still a Huffington Post blog, that is not reliable Spumuq (talq) 08:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. Why not try reading the link provided above: WP:NEWSBLOG.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong. Why not try reading the reliable sources noticeboard. Spumuq (talq) 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions of this sort would benefit from posting to the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Relilability of scholarly book (Routledge) paraphrasing Chomsky

The following text, which is from a secondary scholarly source by academics paraphrasing Noam Chomsky, has been reverted for illegitimate reasons, as far as I can tell, so posting this for input.

According to Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi and Nikolaos Karagiannis, citing Noam Chomsky

"Neoliberalism is actually closer to corporatism than any other philosophy in that, in its abandonment of the traditional regulatory function of the state and embracing of corporate goals and objectives, it cedes sovereignty over how its economy and society and are organized to a global cabal of corporate elite (Chomsky, 1998)."

The authors of the chapter the quote is taken from are:

• Nikolaos Karagiannis Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Finance, School of Business and Economics, Winston-Salem State University, USA
• Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi Professor of Economics and Chair, Department of Economics and Finance, Winston-Salem State University, USA, and the editor-in-chief of the American Review of Political Economy

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The question would seem to be whether others also agree the "illegitimate reasons" were a good reason for removal. You might get better response if you say what the reasons were, or if you can't tell, direct a request for clarification to the reverting editors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the edit summaries for the reverts and the thread on RJensen's UT page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

terms like "global cabal of corporate elite" are unadulterated conspiracy theory. Rjensen

(talk) 07:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Try again? There's obviously a major push for economic globalization, corporations obviously have elites at the top. That leaves "Cabal", meaning secret faction in pursuit of the groups own interests. The big corps obviously do that too, or do you claim everything the corps do is publicizied and open for general scrutiny? The text is certainly from an RS. You obviously do not like the text. That's fine, and maybe the text isn't appropriate, but personal dislike does not decide that question. Can you articulate a policy based reason for reverting? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one could even point to undue influence with government through secret proceeding, such as the TPP negotiations. Those have largely been tailored by Wall St., big agribusiness, and other transnational corporations seeking to advance their own interests, not the public interest, if you as Elizabeth Warren, for example. Those agreements are being criticized precisely for subverting the interests of nation states to those of corporations.

It is obviously not a conspiracy theory, as corporations are private entities whose actions are not open to the public, and to say that they don't collaborate--and even collude--is simply a verifiable non-truth. The existence of Chambers of Commerce proves that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The existence of Chambers of Commerce proves, that this is not a conspiracy theory? This does not make sense, it is a conspiracy theory. Spumuq (talq) 10:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you revert warring against CONSENSUS on the basis of a claim of WP:FRINGE?

You are accusing academics of promoting a conspiracy theory regarding a readily ascertainable aspect of reality, which is a ludicrous assertion. The Chamber of Commerce in Japan, for example, is in favor of the TPP, whereas most civil society organizations in Japan are against it, as is the agricultural collective, for example. Chambers of Commerce are private bodies aimed at promoting the business interests of their members,a dnthey engage in lobbying.

Enough said on that diversion. Your last edit deleted two passages for which there is a consensus here that they are reliably sourced. If you want to assert FRINGE, then open a thread at WP:FRINGE/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What CONSENSUS? Spumuq (talq) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, what consensus? 3RR has been broken with no meaningful debate on the talk page so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly conspiracy theory. The US Chamber of Commerce is also relentless in lobbying on behalf of big business, especially since the 1970s (see: Powell Memorandum). And the academic source cited was published by Routledge in 2013, which certainly qualifies as WP:RS. My only issue is that the section should not just be a single quote from Chomsky; it should be expanded given the great material in the source provided. I must say that looking over the history of this article and the other discussions above, I'm hardly surprised by who the two reverting editors are.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I likely agree with the part about including this quote in an expanded section. The source is certainly RS, whether people like/dislike its contents. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: There is consensus regarding the Huffington Post piece, for starters. Only one editor has questioned the reliability of the piece, and refused to take to the RS/N, because he knows he would meet with the same response there as he has here: WP:NEWSBLOG, and the author is an academic who is an expert in the relevant field.

Next, your comment in reply to Rjensen above seemed to clearly reject his unsustainable assertion regarding a "conspiracy theory", which is plainly ludicrous in light of the sourcing and content, putting you in the "include" group with two others, on a policy-based rationale, which the "delete" editors do not have, and have refused to take their claims of FRINGE to the notice board.

@C.J. Griffin: While I agree that there should be more from the excellent book cited, there is only the single quote about "corporatism". Meanwhile, criticism of an ideological relationship between neoliberalism and corporatism is a criticism that was missing from the article, so it is clearly DUE.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

A solution would be to build the sub-section on corporatism using multiple scholarly sources. Perhaps one reason there is only one quote in that book linking "corporatism" and neoliberalism is because, according to some sources, "corporatism" (depending on the definition) and neoliberalism are not the same thing. Looking at this table from the book Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach, neoliberalism comes across as something far worse than "corporatism" insofar as generating economic inequality and promoting mass incarceration of marginalized populations. So building a sub-section on corporatism in this article will have to take this into account as well.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The concept of corporatism is old and generally used to characterize a more medieval mode of societal configuration where society is composed of various interests groups called "corporations" (e.g., guilds) that share common interests and exist as organs of the state, more or less.

Chomsky is using the term in a nuanced manner with reference to the modern context, reflecting the fact that under neoliberalism, transnational corporations (incorporated legal persons that are businesses) are the only interest group that has any clout, and that they are now subverting the sovereignty of the nation states in which they originated, destroying economies, etc. The following book (pp. 70-81) describes the scenario to some extent:Struggle and the Prospects for World Government. This book examines the issue of free trade with respect to NAFTA Big Business, The State, and Free Trade: Constructing Coalitions in Mexico.

There are studies that examine labor unions, for example, as a form of "corporation" in a corporatist system that have influence on a par with business corporations, but Chomsky is describing the scenario where labor unions do not have that status, and corporations are subverting the nation state, which is relevant with respect to the TPP at present, as free trade is a neoliberal goal, while all of the labor unions in the USA are up in arms against the TPP.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to Ubikwit's misrepresentation of my explicit prior remark, I am not yet persuaded the revert in question should by restored. Rather, I think we should follow BRD and attempt, futile as it may be with this editor, to have a constructive look at all the pro/con arguments, emphasis on constructive. Only then will I be sufficiently informed to decide what I think. The biting does nothing to inform and would be better left at home. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but your comment explicitly speaks for itself, I did not "misrepresent" you. You refuted the claims of a conspiracy theory, etc., being made by a deletee editor. What did I misrepresent?

We have been discussing the edits and reverts, but this is not a "pro/con" issue outside of the relevant policies.

The last revert by team FRINGE reverted both the HP text and the Chomsky-related text, yet the editor refuses to defend their false claims by opening notice board threads.

Why don't you help them do that? Or do I have to do everything around here myself?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually when another editor says you misrepresented their position the smart, dialogue-fostering thing to do is to apologize. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I thanked you for the making the comment at issue, so it is har to AGF regarding your accusation that I misrepresented you. Are you trying to make a point?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Mentions of Noam Chomsky on political topics are generally a red flag for POV problems. The content here is no exception. Sadly, it's pretty much the same kind of political rhetoric that has already taken over most of the article. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Wiki rules don't automatically reject Chomsky's view. He's an academic, the sources is RS, and Chomsky does criticize neoliberalism in that manner. Where we get into POV is when we try to jam his naked words into articles all by themselves to make our own WP:POINT. This material could certainly be part of an NPOV discussion of the range of views. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are pointing to the guideline WP:POINT, I suggest you read it again, because I don't think you understand it.

Wikipedia also has a policy called WP:BIASED that you might want to read. And another called WP:YESPOV.

If you find more views, I encourage you to include them in accordance with WEIGHT; however, note that I've heard no legitimate grounds for attempts to dismiss the source in question.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The bold edit that inserted this material into this article is from (an academic) book that explicitly describes the book's content as "heterodox", that is a fancy way of saying unorthodox or fringe. That is why I initially reverted the material three or so days ago. Nothing in this discussion has altered the book editor's plain description of the content of their text. Thus the weight arguments advanced by the bold editor above are spurious. The insertion of fringe material should be avoided, as should inappropriate casting of aspersions on the imagined reasons for other editor's basic edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That is another POV pushing assertion not based on a reliable source.

Heterodoxy is not WP:FRINGE.

If you insist on invoking FRINGE as a reason for reverting, you should start a thread at WP:FRINGE/N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated attacks and insults upon multiple editors explain to me why you are apparently being banned by from all political pages. I find your attacks appalling and am withdrawing from this discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, that would appear to be you're only face-saving course of "inaction", should you refuse to open a thread at the relevant notice board regarding the unsubstantiated claim of FRINGE...--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• The following text was added from another source (given above, Struggle and the Prospects for World Government), along with the Chomsky citing text, and then the Chomsky text reverted again, based on the false claim that it is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps it bears noting that the material is under the Criticisms section of the article.

  Mark Arthur has written that the influence of neoliberalism has given rise to an "anti-corporatist" movement that "is articulated around the need to re-claim the power that corporations and global institutions have stripped governments of...". He indicates that Adam Smith's "rules for mindful markets", and their elaboration by David Korten, have served as a basis for the anti-corporate movement, "following government's failure to restrain corporations from hurting or disturbing the happiness of the neighbor [Smith]".

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Such rants do not belong in our articles. Stop it. Cleanup of this article is long overdue. bobrayner (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References for this thread

References

Current versus original usage

If the term "neoliberalism" is mainly used today as a derogatory substitute for libertarianism, shouldn't original definition which was more unique be emphasized over current redundant usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarchildSF (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, as most people looking into the subject will want to know what the term means today, not what it meant decades ago. Given the scholarship noted in the bibliography, I'd say its more widely used today than it was back then anyways. And it's not just a derogatory substitute for libertarianism, which itself had a different meaning in another time.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing regarding Neoliberalism as pejorative

I have reverted recent attempts at inserting even more materials into the lede that pushes this point of view. The Imperialism article serves as a good example for this one. Like Neoliberalism, Imperialism is largely used with a negative connotation, but this is mentioned ONCE in the last paragraph of the lede, not sprinkled throughout, which would violate NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference here is that Imperialism is a term which is generally used to describe practices which are largely in disfavor -- i.e. people generally don't defend imperialism, rather they dispute that what they do is imperialist. By contrast, Neoliberalism is a term that is used to try to cast free market ideas which have a large following into disrepute. Furthermore, the people that have changed it from its original meaning have generally done so for that express purpose. I think it is NPOV to make that history clear upfront. Starchild (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It belongs in the opening--as Griffin himself explicitly agreed on 20 March 2015 (see above). POV means that major views are left out--which is NOT the case here. All the sources say it is usually used by its enemies in a negative fashion and rarely or never by friends of the policies. So there is No POV issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It is already in the opening; it is POV pushing to mention it again and again. It is also referenced in the Terminology section. Thus, proper weight is already given to the notion that some scholars see it strictly as a pejorative. And no, not ALL sources proclaim "it is usually used by its enemies"!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a neutrality tag for now and will revert when I can. You obviously know you are giving undue weight to this idea, as you moved the last paragraph of the lede which discusses neoliberalism as a pejorative to the beginning of the next section so you could squeeze "Neoliberalism[1] is a term used primarily by the enemies of..." into the first sentence of the lede.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

«will revert when I can», are you promising to edit war? Spumuq (talq) 14:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This is all you can contribute to this discussion? This in and of itself tells me you know you don't have a leg to stand on in this debate. And it is quite disingenuous considering your past behavior on this very article regarding edit warring, even restoring edits by anonymous IP's which eventually resulted in the article being protected last year. The lede as it exists now is blatantly POV. And yes, at the very least I will restore the inline POV tags you arbitrarily removed when the time allows to reflect this. Prior to Rjensen's recent edits, the lede mentioned that neoliberalism is often used as a pejorative, but refrained from using such language as "a term used primarily by the enemies of...." This is the reason I linked to the Imperialism article, which addresses the use of Imperialism as a pejorative in a way which adheres to NPOV, much like this article did until now. In addition, more POV-pushing was added by RJensen when he supplanted this (When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile) with this (When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s by opponents of Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile), which will also require a POV tag.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My humble suggestion:

• The very first sentence should introduce the reader into the fact that the usage and definition has changed over time. There is no time-independent definition!
• The following passage may start with todays usage since this is the most recent one ;-)
• The last passages should deal with the beginning and the reason for shifting. There should not be a doubling of the description of todays usage in the last passages - Bis repetita non placent -

I feel - at least hope - that there could be a consensus to start with a warning that there is no time-independend definition. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. Spumuq (talq) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

<INSERT>I can live with this version but must insist on two things:

• The Oxford quote is redundant (as the first sentence tells the reader it is a critics term) and constitutes undue eight in my opinion, considering it is the first paragraph of the lede. I'm not advocating for its removal, but incorporating it into a citation and adding it with the others. This would resolve these issues.
• Restoring the long standing and NPOV sentence ("When the term was reintroduced in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile" - italics mine) in place of the current version which is blatant POV.

With this, perhaps we can move closer to a consensus. I'm going to make the necessary changes per WP:BRD and see what happens...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That´s fine for me. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. =)--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is already mentioned that the term is mostly used pejoratively. What is seen here is an obvious exercise of POV pushing. If neoliberals would like to avoid giving their policies a specific title or like to cloak their policies under a certain name, that is not Wikipedia's concern. Zozs (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The definition "Neoliberalism is the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s" is false. Neoliberalism already exists since the 1930s when the term was coined by Alexander Rüstow. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly false. The very first sentence in the introduction of The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States, which was just published months ago (Dec 2014) says: "Neoliberalism represents a reassertion of the liberal political economic beliefs of the 19th century in the contemporary era." This is pretty close to what was said in the lede of this article until yesterday. If this is false, then someone should immediately inform the literally scores of scholars who contributed to this tome, along with Routledge (an academic publisher) who published it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States definition is correct for todays notion of Neoliberalism. But I think we should not ignore that the original idea of Neoliberalism was a renovation away from laissez-fare liberalism (hence the "neo"). I´m aware that the original notion is not exactly widely known in the US. But until the 1970s the old notion of Neoliberalism and social market economy were an export model, until Pinochets economists totally wrecked the idea with their radicalism of a laissez-faire Neoliberalism without the neo.

All the academic sources that intensively followed the history of Neoliberalism wrote that there was either a transition from a moderate to a radical liberalism or a break from the early reformation tradition.

Neoliberalism was quite successfull as social market economy. The Pinochet version of the 1970s totally did not work but then again the moderate Neoliberalism in Chile in the 1980s and 1990s was quite successfull - because it was different from the 1970s, but on the other hand it was not totally different -

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." because "It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct conclusions from it." Karl Marx and Henry Kissinger. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be ignored - not at all. Just challenging the notion that the particular sentence in question is false. But this is a moot point now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: In the 1950s und 60s Germany and the USA developed very similar although the official economic policy in Germany was Neoliberalism and in the USA keynesian economics. In fact the economic policy itself was very similar in both countries despite different labels. We should not overemphasize labels. The road to success is buried under details. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede now says "Since the 1980s it is a term used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy." I have added "by scholars" given that the term is primarily found in academic works, judging by the myriad academic citations and academic works referenced in the bibliography. It is even referenced in the sources, in particular the Boas/Morse source, which refers to neoliberalism as an "academic catchphrase" in the first sentence of the abstract (quote: "It In recent years, neoliberalism has become an academic catchphrase."). I believe the first sentence of the lede (excluding the preceding disclaimer) now finally adheres to NPOV.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing disputes over article

Starchild SF replaced this: "Since the 1980s, the term has been used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas...", with this: "Since the 1980s, the term has been used primarily by those who disagree with ideas they characterize as neoliberal, primarily ideas..." We have been over this ad nauseum. Is it not enough that it is already mentioned that it is primarily used by scholars and critics (which is factually correct based on the sources), but you have to place undue emphasis on *opponents* while removing the fact it is widely used by the scholarly community? Clearly this is another case of POV pushing. The previous version adheres to NPOV given that both are mentioned, as I stated in the previous dispute on this. This version is blatantly POV as it seeks to overemphasize its use as a pejorative while removing any mention that it is used widely by academics.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV. Spumuq (talq) 10:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop your trolling already. As per usual you are incapable of coming up with a single coherent argument to justify your activity here, including this blatant POV revision. No one can honestly say that this version adheres to NPOV while while the other, which reflected what the sources say - that it is a term used by scholars and critics - does not. Why are obvious free market ideologues so frightened of the notion that the term is used widely in academia that they feel compelled to remove any mention of it in the lede even though the sources state it outright? Why are they hell bent on marginalizing the term in the minds of readers to a mere pejorative used by a few "leftist" crackpots? This is the agenda being pushed here by rabid ancap/libertarian types; if they convince readers the term is essentially a useless pejorative, they won't read past that first sentence. This has been going on with this article for quite some time and I'm going to the mat to stop it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The original version was objective, neutral, and relied on sources. The replacement is both POV and unencyclopaedic, and in no way preferable. I will revert the latest change. RolandR (talk) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

C.J. - I disagree that my proposed change which you describe above "overempahsizes" its use as a pejorative -- personally that is the only way that I have ever heard the term used, and so putting the primary emphasis on that use seems objectively fair. I don't know of anyone who identifies themselves as "neoliberal", do you? Perhaps we can come up with some consensus language, given time, but in the meantime the fair thing to do, if you are bent on keeping your version, seems to be to mark the page as disputed. Fair enough? Starchild (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Disputed

Am adding this section per Wikipedia's guidelines on listing a page as disputed. Starchild (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

So, exactly what facts are you disputing with this tagging of the entire article with a "factual accuracy is disputed" tag? I'm not sure if you have problems with reading comprehension or something, but the very first sentence already states that neoliberalism is a critics term (a critic is a person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something). Right there you have the emphasis you want. So presumably it must be that you are just unhappy that the lede also states that the term is used widely by scholars, which gives it some sense of credibility so its not immediately marginalized in the minds of readers (which is obviously what proponents of free market ideology would want), so I believe this is purely ideological on your part and has nothing to do with "facts in dispute." User:RolandR was right when he said the version you prefer is both "POV and unencyclopaedic," which is perhaps why you chose not to use a neutrality disputed tag as your proposed additions are clearly POV. And as I stated above, the sources in the article confirm it is also a scholars term, including the source most widely cited, the 2009 Taylor C. Boas, Jordan Gans-Morse article. Let me quote a portion relevant to this discussion:

Neoliberalism has rapidly become an academic catchphrase. From only a handful of mentions in the 1980s, use of the term has exploded during the past two decades, appearing in nearly 1,000 academic articles annually between 2002 and 2005. Neoliberalism is now a predominant concept in scholarly writing on development and political economy, far outpacing related terms such as monetarism, neoconservatism, the Washington Consensus, and even “market reform.” (emphasis mine)

There is even a nifty little graph on the same page that shows a spike in the use of the term among scholars. Of course one only has to look at the bibloigraphy to understand this, as I have been expanding it with relevant academic publications as I find them. I'd go so far as to say the term is used more widely among academics, opponents or otherwise, than any other group. So the factual accuracy of the sentence as it exists now has been confirmed by reliable sources - it is a term used by scholars and critics. That being the case, I believe your use of this tag constitutes frivolous tagging and should be removed if you cannot produce a reliable source to refute what is stated above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with C.J. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the tag and placed citations for both scholars and critics for the sake of neutrality. I hope this resolves the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute - Feminism

There's a lot of troubling statements in this section:

Neoliberalism can also be seen as gutting liberal concepts under market values. Liberal feminism has seen the same effect with new definitions under neoliberalism using key liberal terms such as equality, opportunity, and free choice while displacing and replacing their content to individualized and entrepreneurial content.[10] The individualistic nature of this new feminism disavows the social, cultural, and economic forces producing this inequality, moving feminism from a structural problem into an individual affair. This hollows out the potential of liberal feminism to underscore the constitutive contradictions of liberal democracy and further entrenches neoliberal rationality and imperialistic logic.[11] The neoliberal shift in feminism neutralizes collective uprising and transfers the site of activity from the public arena to each individuals psyche. With no orientation beyond the self, feminism is not being steered towards the toppling of the political order or even coming to awareness of systematic male domination.[12] Liberal feminism when individualized rather than collectivized completely detaches from social inequality and consequently cannot offer any sustained analysis of the structures of male dominance, power, privilege.[13] The larger support in feminism for Hillary Clinton in 2016 (NOW and "Feminists for Clinton") is an example of this shift in feminism towards neoliberalism considering Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to women and LGBT practices.[14] This shift reflects a narrowness of analysis, vision, and values that only apply to wealthy white women who share in the wealth from corporate capitalism and U.S. imperial power.[15]

I was initially going to pick out particular examples from this paragraph, but every sentence is problematic. I'm not sure how it's acceptable under WP:NPOV to say any of this with Wikipedia's voice. Statements like "Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to women and LGBT practices" are particularly egregious. If the consensus is to retain these claims, we must attribute, rather than merely cite, them. Entiex (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Austrian School", or make it a subheading of "Criticisms"

Neoliberalism (this version) refers to the Austrian School as a branch of neoliberalism. It is not.

There is a pre-1980 meaning of Neoliberalism and a post-1980 meaning. The Austrian School matches the post-1980 meaning of Neoliberalism. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Reliable academic sources confirm this [2][3]. Mises Institute is not a reliable source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That the Austrian School matches the post-1980 meaning of Neoliberalism in academic literature is one thing. Letting the reader believe that Austrian economic principles have actually been applied AND are responsible for all the issues mentioned is another?

I remember seeing the hip-hop video Fear the Boom and Bust which relates the opposition between the economists Keynes and Hayek. Although art and fictional the producers obviously put a lot of research into actual happenings. It was of interest to many people relating to the 2008 crisis. Keynesianism does get the odd mention in financial press with respect to some decisions.

Also, the page states that Ron Paul is an Austrian. Reading some of his articles now he seems very critical of economic policies.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to enumerate policies and to state to which school of thought they belong? If only with respect to the 2008 crisis. --JamesPoulson (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Wikipedia says this on the Austrian School page:

Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox." Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics. Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed academic and public interest starting in the 1970s.

The mention of "mainstream" seems to imply that Austrian-style policies haven't (ever) been applied? --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As Pass3456 said, there is a pre-1980 and a post-1980 meaning of Neoliberalism. While the latter is related to the Austrian school it however is not equal. The Austrian School can be considered a (theoretical) forerunner or source of inspiration of the more practical post-1980 neoliberalism. --PanchoS (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS what you are saying should be transposed in the article.

The concern is this. Say someone knows nothing about neoliberalism. They will navigate to Wikipedia, read from the top to the bottom, see the mention of Austrian School and could assume that criticisms and effects can be attributed to it. Is this the case? As I said, it's proponents do appear antagonist to the current system.

There is the section Neoliberalism#Policy_implications but no simple bullet list of policies and to who they can be attributed. This is a political page and the implication seems to be that neoliberal political policies are dominant.

However, there is a mention of economics here. The page Mainstream economics states this:

Mainstream economics is widely accepted economics as taught across prominent universities, in contrast to heterodox economics. It has been associated with neoclassical economics and with the neoclassical synthesis, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian approach macroeconomics.

Which leads to the page of Heterodox economics where it states:

Heterodox economics refers to methodologies or schools of economic thought that are considered outside of "mainstream economics", often represented by expositors as contrasting with or going beyond neoclassical economics. "Heterodox economics" is an umbrella term used to cover various approaches, schools, or traditions. These include socialist, Marxian, institutional, evolutionary, Georgist, Austrian, feminist, social, post-Keynesian (not to be confused with New Keynesian), and ecological economics among others.

So the conclusion would be that whatever mainstream economic policies are, these are responsible for the economic effects observed. So should the Austrian school be mentioned in this respect?

What I gather about current Austrian views are as follows:

• balancing government budgets
• disbanding the central banks which would go along with the idea of a form of free banking?
• returning to a gold standard
• some moderation in terms of credit?

This does not fit in with current policies.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Now, with that said it gets really confusing with the quote on the page from Alan Greenspan saying, "the Austrian School have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country."

This is odd seeing the previous excerpt seems to indicate that Austrians actually want to get rid of central banks. What exactly is the stated influence on mainstream economics? What views have been adopted if any?

Also Ron Paul as well as Bernie Sanders have been somewhat critical towards him in the past although Ron Paul seems slightly more sympathetic.

In this article in the Guardian about the 2008 crisis he states:

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms"

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Even though Ben Bernanke was the chairman of the Federal Reserve from 2006 onwards and most probably leans towards other views, the page of Alan Greenspan says this:

"Alan Greenspan is an American economist who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006 [...] The easy-money policies of the Fed during Greenspan's tenure have been suggested by some to be a leading cause of the subprime mortgage crisis, which occurred within months of his departure from the Fed"

Someone needs to do some research. Actually determine what policies have been applied since the 1970s and what has been happening.

Finally, the article about neoliberalism states that "the transition of consensus towards neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results". It is interesting to note on Financial_repression#After_World_War_II with respect to the situation in terms of government debt:

Financial repression "played an important role in reducing debt-to-GDP ratios after World War II" by keeping real interest rates for government debt below 1% for two-thirds of the time between 1945 and 1980, the United States was able to "inflate away" the large debt (122% of GDP) left over from the Great Depression and World War II. In the UK, government debt declined from 216% of GDP in 1945 to 138% ten years later in 1955.

--JamesPoulson (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

While I am no expert on the Austrian School, I have read a couple of samples of the writings of recent adherents of the school like Murray Rothbard on various matters. In some ways they seem to oppose most concepts on the role of the state and its laws in society. For example, on the concept of raising a child and a right to education, Rothbard has the following observations to offer:

"...no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights. Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive."

Somehow, I doubt that their ideas have been particularly influential in modern political thought. Dimadick (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: rethinking about this now and with respect to my post below, it appears that Rothbard is against Social rights. By making such a statement he is justifying the breakage of any "positive" or second-generation human rights so there would be no exceptions. As such he could be seen as an "extremist" in the liberal spectrum. --JamesPoulson (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Clearly, in non-economic affairs like education, Rothbard's extreme (and obviously inhumane) laissez-faire doctrine has not been particularly influential. Though his supporters style him the "prototype Austrian", it's been more Hayek's line which influenced real-world neoliberal economic policy, see also Austrian School#Split among contemporary Austrians. --PanchoS (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dimadick: @PanchoS: This description reminds me of something I read in the program of the local Libertarian party, Libertarianism appearing to be a more "radical" offshoot of liberalism. Something to do with getting rid of some positive rights (see Negative and positive rights) which are seen as forcing one person to provide something to another. With respect to children this article underlines some contradictions about Rothbard's statements. In terms of human politics, most Western countries apply social (not social-ist) policies which include "positive" rights to some degree. --JamesPoulson (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)