Why does every social science despise neoliberalism except economics?

>Social sciences
>Bothering with ethics

FPBP

Leftists on suicide watch.

Certain economists are worried about the effects of monetary policy on society. Von Mises is. Irving Fisher and Keynes, while very psychological, are not very sociological.

Most of it does.

Yep. The problem is that they it says you can't use evidence and facts to know if its working or not.

Howe the fuck can you say something is a fact or not if you can't use facts or evidence to back it up.

Might as well pull down your pants and shit on the floor and call it an economic policy.

>Economists despise free trade, immigration, privatisation
lol

Are you fucking retarded? Neoliberalism =/= Austrian economics

>business owners are the same thing as economists

I think he's making fun of the fact that you just broadly painted economists with a sweeping brush and said they all collectively despise or lean towards a side on highly political issues.

>neoliberalism
>Austrian economics

Retard alert.

Okay, but I'm a different user.

because proper and functioning humanities are a bane to useless humanities

/thread

Awful bait.

Because other social sciences are tied to reality in some way and economics is studying a system that isn't reflective of the material world in anyway

There is a near universal consensus on Free trade & Immigration. Privatisation is well accepted if there is a sufficient regulatory structure. Austerity & spending cuts both have their place at times as well

>Muh unsubstantiated opinion

/thread

Yeah sure, if by economist you mean the guy from Goldman Sachs who turns up on Bloomberg to shill.

Let's look at a bunch of economists discussing their field semi-informally on a popular industry blog/forum, hosted by a prominent economist based at U.C. Berkeley! Shall we?

delong.typepad.com

Take a gander at real economists talking shop!

#1 The rational view of human behaviour posited in neo-liberalism is necessary for most mathematical models
#2 Neo-liberalism is one of the most effective systems to produce wealth so economists, who study wealth creation, admire its efficiency. Other social sciences that focus more on human interactions, social structures, happiness, etc. see the unintended consequences of the neo-liberal order on such structures, and so largely reject it.

Neoliberal like Friedman were Chicago School economists.

How did Neo-Liberal economics prove that it was responsible for the economic happy times?

I thought economics wasn't a hard science?

Like most social phenomena, there is no hard proof, and neo-liberal policies are not perfect, but the world economy has grown at it's highest pace ever since the 1980s, despite the unequal concentration of thi growht. As well, neo-liberalism is more than a set of policy pescriptions, it is a way of understanding social phenomena, and the core tenants of liberal economics have been accepted by the economic discipline for many decades (including the Robert Reichs and Paul Krugmans of the world), even if it is not accepted to all of its conclusions ( as makes up much of the debate today)

But Regan wasn't a neo-liberal and neither was the rest of the world.

The amount of government spending increased under Regan exponentially compared to Carter.

The budge was only balanced under Clinton only to have even more government spending under Bush 2.

And suffice to say, even though China has implemented many market liberalization reforms, it is by no means a neo-liberalist economy.

And hence, one of the problems with the term 'neoliberal'. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. Is Neoliberalism an actual coherent ideology or is t just a word used to catagorise everything that social scientists don't like?

Reagan failed to balance the budget, but that is only one aspect of neo-liberalism. He also drastically cut taxes and regulation, as well as many discretionary programs, (very neo-liberal policies) but failed to reduce the deficit due to drastically increased military spending and almost non-existent entitlement reform. This could be explained by him being a hawkish anti-communist and religious conservative in addition to his neo-liberal beliefs.

For fucks sake, deficit spending is exactly what Keynes says to do to fix the economy.

I know cutting taxes is part of the neo-liberal philosophy, but I'm pretty goddamn sure Keynes was the one who said in order to get out of economic slumps that the government should spend its way out.

business.monash.edu/economics-forum/polls/immigration

>"87.5% agree that the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade"
degruyter.com/view/j/ev.2006.3.9/ev.2006.3.9.1156/ev.2006.3.9.1156.xml

As for China, it is not a completely neo-liberal economy (largely to it's advantage), but after years of Maoism they succumbed to the reality that market forces were the most effective way of promoting economic growth in the country. It, however, smartly abandons strict ideology at times to use the government's power to boost domestic efficiency and competitiveness through long-term planning and investment.

This

Really. I doubt China would not have been so successful had it not devalued its currency. Not a very neo-liberal thing to do.

However, it is not all economists. Thomas Piketty, for instance, has written that trade barriers may be beneficial. Protectionism is a double sided issue, it's never been completely unanimous.

I should add that I believe that Keynesianism is a better policy overall, as well as for short-term problems, but is largely unable to change long-term growth patterns or structural inadequacies. For that, economics has largely taken the position that easing market restrictions and government interventions, with some notable exceptions, is best at long-term economic growth. As well, as a student of other social sciences, I do not believe that small amounts of economic growth is the greatest goal of our society, if it comes at so high a social cost.

I hate when people are condescending like this, but you must not really understand neo-liberalism bc devaling your currency is an extremely neo-liberal thing to do!

Orthodox/mainstream economics has since Adam Smith overwhelmingly agreed that protectionism is harmful for economic growth outside of very particular circumstances. As much as I like Picketty, he is neither orthodox nor mainstream

I'm confused. Is Keynesian economics and Neo-Liberalism the same thing?

Because in order to devalue a currency you must have inflation which Keynes was all about.

I though Neo-Liberalism was about deflation?

Maybe I'm just not educated.

>Trade barriers may be restricted
What? He argues that trade liberation has led to increased inequality (which it has to an extent, but pros >>> cons) BUT he said that re-creating trade barriers will not solve this issue

Thomas Piketty is not mainstream he says.

What of the major schools with differing opinions indicated by the economists themselves forms 'mainstream orthodox' economics. It is a highly divisive complicated science, and protectionism almost falls under something members of the law-making authority should pay attention to, due to the extremely simple nature of the problem. As you said, it was tackled by Adam Smith.

beneficial* sorry

Have you read a single book written by an economist? Has anyone in this thread? Or do you all just read fucking history???

He wrote an article in the Guardian where he makes an argument that tariffs may be necessary for America with some addendum.

It was in /r/economics for a minute.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/16/globalization-trump-inequality-thomas-piketty

This one? He rejects CETA because muh environment and corpies

>It is time to change the political discourse on globalization: trade is a good thing

I suppose I could read a book and come back, but I might still have the same views I have now.

So enlighten me? Is neo-liberalism ok with government induced inflation?

A quick summary of Neoliberal policies: udel.edu/~jdeiner/neoliberal.html

In general, no one likes inflation, but neo-liberals are fine with devaluing currencies in rder to boost exports (aka export-led growth)

>No one (including Piketty) wants to return to a regime of tariffs and protectionism.
spectator.org/59189_thomas-pikettys-le-capital/

Bare in mind his OP-ed on the Guardian makes me cringe.
>Stand strong America! Keep those depreciated wages, economic incidence on the working class, low fdi, and higher prices! Do not follow Europe down the path of reducing the CIT, academic consensus be damned

Neo-liberalism, if it exists as a doctrine which is very debatable, argues for floating exchange rates. That is, exchange rates determined by market forces. As such, going to this from a fixed (government decides how much they want the currency to be worth and prints money accordingly) or pegged (government makes the currency worth the same amount as another currency) currency may lead to a devaluation or appreciation of the currency, depending on what the initial exchange rate regime was.

>Because in order to devalue a currency you must have inflation which Keynes was all about.

It's not that you NEED inflation to devalue a currency, it's that the exchange rate and the inflation rate are linked. The government can use monetary policy to focus on one or the other. Neoliberals believe that monetary policy should be used to control inflation. Keynesians (not the right term. I would use protectionists but w/e) believe that monetary policy should be used to control the trade balance.

Ok. I'll take your word for it.

Today I learned that Neo-Liberals aren't gold bug Austrians.

>IMF, World Bank, MNCs, and US support neoliberal model
...and literally every political party on earth that isn't currently trying to seize the means of production or institute Hitler 2.0

Read this for a more luvvie version

medium.com/@s8mb/im-a-neoliberal-maybe-you-are-too-b809a2a588d6#.vuhpzx4tg

Trade with some caveats. Protectionist policies are complex, sometimes economists argue they are efficient because they keep resources within a country or stabilize interest rates.

>they are efficient because they keep resources within a country
Who

>they are efficient because they keep resources within a country or stabilize interest rates.

I've never heard of that.

Then again I'm only an undergrad. Which economists are saying that?

Most modern theories that provide caveats to the consensus that free trade is good all the time just emphasize the redistributional effects it has within a country.

Identity polítics is neoliberalism incarnated

Its just a mask for the plebs

>(((social science)))

economics study money systems
Money is derived from, and is used to trade real objects, but monetization is not based on material reality, let alone the objects it is used to barter for. It used to be based on gold, but that was even more retarded because gold is not representive of anything besides gold.
So now we have people trading irreplaceable resources like land or plelagic fish using a currency based on what? Labour? """"Value""""? (And Monetization isn't even accurate at representing those things)
It's completely incongruent with reality higher GDP lower natural capital.
Other social sciences are dealing with artificial systems that are based on material reality (via biosemiosis) and/or do not influence material reality like economies do.
Ecological economics is based in reality but I guarantee you nobody who understands ecology is advocating for neoliberalism.
Neoliberal economics is what officially started the apocalypse( picture related).

So these people, the ones that are grounded in reality, and even most economists recognize the need to regulate the economy to keep it from having more freedom than we do.

There is one other way for a market economy to coexist with life on earth that I can think of, one that doesn't require retroactive arbitration to regulate the economy.
Instead I purpose a market economy that doesn't malfunction to begin with.

By placing constraints on the material that goes into the market by using applied ecology to determine what raw resources and land can be mutually allocated to syndicates in a sustainable manner, and monetization of the products syndicates create using a computerized currency that is based on scarcity(weight based) and not some abstract value, that is created when a material product is sold and can be used to buy material goods of equal value or can be traded for services, or virtual goods of arbitrarily determined value(as those don't require the input of material to create)
Leaving us with a free market economy, that is congruent with reality, and preemptively regulated by empircal science, and using this modified form of mutualism with the anarcho-syndicalist tactic we are left with a sustainable, non-hierarchal social system.
This is the only system I can conceive of where free market economics is possible.

You are a shining example of why you are either a scientist and a philosopher or not a scientist at all.
the new dogma, to belive that empiricism is the only way the scientific method can be implied.
Theoretical science is still science, and much of the social sciences are empircal anyways, contrarian psueds like you are so desperate to argue so you can narcissistically masturbate away all your little brainlet insecurities, that you don't even bother to understand what you are arguing about.
You deserve to be laughed out of science.

The only justification for protectionism is if locating industry on your soil has strategic significance. If your neighbors are peaceful democracies it is a dick move to demand that a factory be built in your obscure jungle town when a more economical location would be your neighbor's bustling port city.

Questions:
The reasons why people want talcum powder and chicken tendercrisps might be subjective, but it is an objective fact that they are willing to exchange currency for these items and they do not do so in a completely random manner so economics is based in reality. How is this not so?

>image.jpg
>apocalypse
This is just a readjustment as can be seen in many other ecosystems, we are moving to a new equilibrium.

What are the ∞ cycle things?
What are α, k, r and Ω?

>a market economy to coexist with life on earth....Leaving us with a free market economy, that is congruent with reality
Don't you mean a system that takes into account "public property" like the atmosphere which cannot easily be handled by a free market? If you apply occam's razor that seems to be the root of the problem, it also harks back to Adam Smith's tragedy of the commons.

Notice how I put the qualifier 'material' in front of reality, desire is of course derived from reality, but it does not represent reality it represents desire.
Desire isn't what is being studied by economics, capital is. Capital that is being traded for a good or service, and even services must be payed for with capital that was earned by, and created to represent a material item that was created by the exploitation of the natural world, natural capital. Now how is a number that is derived as a measure of desire going to be reflective of natural capital, objects taken from the natural world? objects are not independent, they are parts of a system, when one part is moved it effects the dynamics of the entire system, through casual interactions that connect each part in the system, and outside influence from its external environment which make possible the emergence of life in a system, this means that living systems such as earth are inter-dependent, along with the location in spacetime this creates the constraints that give the system it's function( we mold a pot out of clay but it is the emptiness inside that holds water, function comes from what is not there and the constrains confining the absence to a paticular space
I'm really fucked up I'm going to reply to ecology real wuick and hope we don't 404 before I wake up to .

Ecosystems do not tend toward equilibrium they are dynamic as I have just described, this has been basic ecology for 40 years and schools still teach the equilibrium paradigm. Ecosystems are dynamic in the same way living systems like we are we get sick and our immune system goes to work. all life must be able to act accordingly to survive in its environment.
Ecosystems have immune systems too, the more connections in a system, the more ways the system has to restructure itself after a catastrophe, but in today's world, new devolpment has severed these connections on scale never before seen, and we are going through a mass extinction, and biodiveristy loss, which means there are less parts to be connected.
scare resource=more intense exploitation
=scared resources.
This is called a possible feedback loop

Because economics hasn't changed it's theory in 200 years.

>IF IT'S TO THE RIGHT OF MARX IT'S ALL THE SAME SHIT
Predictable. Why are leftists so retarded?

"No"

>Orthodox/mainstream economics has since Adam Smith overwhelmingly agreed that protectionism is harmful for economic growth outside of very particular circumstances.

The American School of economics literally repudiated classical economics, which is why America turned into the most powerful country in the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Thank you. Mainstream economics is kind of a misnomer, there are multiple schools and ideologies anyway. And the individual economists can have very unique views as well.

Neoclassicists, for one, accept most of what Adam Smith writes about

I agree with you, I just wanted to shed a light on the fact that economics was associated with the nation state for a long time before global free trade was the norm.

The U.S had tariffs and protectionism because they wanted to grow and protect their own country, but today the paradigm has shifted to globalistic economics instead for some reason.

Wow, some people still take the American School seriously? Ahahahahaha

>still take

That wasn't the point was it, moron.

>but today the paradigm has shifted to globalistic economics instead for some reason.

This is because the positive link between trade openness and economic growth was confirmed by most empirical studies.

The figure comes from here and it is systems dynamics
rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1606/3158
You will need to understand the paper and to do that you are going to need to learn the rhetoric which will not be easy, but will reward you with a more accurate contextual world view. (May cause suicidal ideation in people with emotions)

>This is because the positive link between trade openness and economic growth was confirmed by most empirical studies.

Of course, but that economic growth isn't tied to a specific area of the world, it's aggregate growth all over.

While of course I agree with you, there is a reason that nations historically practiced protectionism.

yeah, retardation and believing the economy is zero-sum

>retardation and believing the economy is zero-sum

More like all your neighbors are actual enemies, and you don't want them to have economic leverage on your country.

Because social science with neoliberalism is called economics?

Basically "Social scientists" mostly are interested in way to control people's lives. Many probably don't even take liberty seriously and look for weird "determinations" of people by one another.

A positive link between the degradation and extinction of socio-ecological systems and Economic growth has been empirically confirmed by most studies
Here's oneHere's a metaphor
In plelagic ecosystems platonic algae blooms are controlled by predatory regulation from filter feeders.
If you where to put that algae in a tank with optimum conditions for growth, but excluded the filter feeders(ecosystems are much more complex than two interactions btw). The algae would consume the nutrient medium until there is nothing left to support it and the population crashes into extinction.
Any system that is regulated solely by morphodynamic processes behaves like this, i.e. The economy.
Living systems must be able to constrain themselves in order to stay alive.
Advocating for neoliberalism is advocating for the extinction of the socio-ecological systems that economies exist in.

>"Social scientists"
See

That was truly awful.
Nowhere in my post was anything implied about empiricism. This is a whole new level of non-argument. This retarded post goes into a weird anti-empiricism rant that had nothing to do with the post it referred to, which simply mocked "social scientists" (the quotes seem to trigger you) without any other information. The quotes are the only thing in common between my post and the other one. In both cases they were signs of mockery and nothing else, you are giving it a weird meaning on your own.

Meaning is interpreted subjectively
>lrn2semioticspls
No, that mockery implies a specific critism.
To scare quote "social sciences", is to imply that that "social sciences" doesn't mean social sciences. I.e you think it is not a science, ergo it can be assumed that you think science must be empirically derived to be science or you just don't know wtf you are talking about and are echoing what someone else said. (Now I know it is the later)
Not anti empiricism, but anti-scientism. Theoretical science is a thing.

Still based off of Adam Smith ffs
All the humanities have moved, economics stays the same.

> it can be assumed that you think science must be empirically derived to be science
That isn't even close to follow from what I said.
You can do away with your "assumptions".

No it isn't you fucking retard

>doesn't follow
Yes it does, and I proven that with logical axioms explaining my "assumptions"(propositional logic)
What part of your post did I quote?
>"social sciences"
Not the rest of your post that had nothing to do with you scare quoting "social sciences"
The problem here is that you used " "social sciences" " to try to convey a meaning that can not be logically interpreted from that symbol(misnomer)

This was meant for

Man, I didnt mean to murder the thread.
Guess Veeky Forums just isn't interested in the discussion of anything that can't be argued against.

>Social """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""science""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>science
lmfao nice one sempai

people in this thread ACTUALLY believe this bullshit

you're honestly better off asking the village voodoo wizard for clear answers

I bet you sat there and giggled to yourself like a retard while typing this