Capitalism and Freedom or The Constition of Liberty

if it isn't neoliberalism, then what is it?

SO is that a no to Hayeck and a yes to Friedman...or a no to both and I should just jump to Wealth of Nations.

Classical liberalism along with classical political economy was well aware that no outlay of living or embodied labor is needed to obtain rent and interest. The labour theory of value was the essence of classical liberalism. This analysis offended the vested interests and they responded with neoclassical/austrian economics and neoliberalism/globalism politically.

Neoliberalism tries to depict rentier economies as progressing forward, beyond industrialization, rather than laspsing back into a pre-industrial usury-and-rent economy of feudal Europe when military conquest was the major enterprise and economies polarized between creditors and debtors.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

As you can read in the very same link you provided --is Wikipedia going to be the main source for every semi-serious topic discussed on this chinese cartoon forum?--, neoliberalism is a derogative term used to depict those who doesn't choke on pseudokeynesian dick (aka "public spending is good for the sake of it no matter whether it is well spent or plain prodigality").

It's funny how lefties here in Europe use the term and apply it to everything they don't like whilst at the same time they use the term "fascist" in the very same fashion.

For instance, they claim UK voted for Brexit because of neoliberalism (???) while conveniently forgetting (or dishonestly omitting) that the EU is one of the most interventionist entities that has ever existed in Europe that produces a shit ton of regulation (including the size and shape of vegetables within common market -fortunately not anymore, bureaucrats don't care about cucumber's curvature anymore-, quota for contents on Netflix depending on the nationality of the product, a good amount of consumers protection regulation, all of ECB regulation and policies, etc.). So yeah, in their eyes the EU is "neoliberal" (and "fascist" at the same time) while they advocate for leaving it if it doesn't turn into a super nanny state that goes bat-shit insane printing more money and allowing its members to get indebted with no limits.

tl;dr Neoliberalism is not only a meme but also a spook that is often used as a cheap and dishonest argument.

Go for capitalism and Freedom
Friedman was a better economist than Hayek.
Hayeks macro work was wrong, but his law stuff is interesting.
Road to serfdom is always good.

New Keynesian economics is rather neoliberal.
Greg Mankiw is neoliberal as fuck.
New Keynesian= good
Vulgar/old Keynesianism ( public spending is always good m'kay ) = bad

econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html

This article is recommended for the proper meaning of neoliberalism and it's successes, not some nonsense from some sociologist who heard about Pinochet while he was jacking off to Marx.

The wikipedia article doesn't really capture the essence of neoliberalism

econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html

>The neoliberal revolution combines the free markets of classical liberalism with the income transfers of modern liberalism. Although this somewhat oversimplifies a complex reality, it broadly describes the policy changes that have transformed the world economy since 1975. Markets in almost every country are much freer than in 1980; the government owns a smaller share of industry; and the top MTRs on personal and corporate income are sharply lower. The United States, starting from a less-socialist position, has been affected less than some other countries. But even in the United States there have been neoliberal reforms in four major areas: deregulation of prices and market access, sharply lower MTRs on high-income people, freer trade, and welfare reform. Many other countries saw even greater neoliberal policy reforms, as once-numerous state-owned enterprises were mostly privatized.

Friedman dude.
I'm about to start re-read it tomorrow, or maybe I'll finish part of capitalism, socialism and Democracy instead...

May be I used the term neokeynesian in an improper manner. It's just that some politic party in my country that advocates to "just expend a shit ton more and raising taxes more and more and shit and we everything will be solved" claim to be "neokeynesian" to disguise what they really are in order to become a cath-all party. I was thinking with a very local mindset.

Hoppe takes libertarianism to it's logical yet somewhat paradoxical conclusion, which looks like a reactionary feudal dystopia where every right is secondary to the right to property. Hoppe even brings back Ideas about the natural order and superiority of hereditary aristocracy. He definitely was was a key influence on the alt-right and on radical technolibertarian circles ie Peter Thiel and Moldbug. Both Thiel and alt right's Richard B. Spencer are speaking at a Hoppe conference in Turkey later this year. In the end, Right-'Libertarianism' is not about your freedom, and is likely to result in even more control.

title edgy AF

What country is that?
Raising taxes is not Keynesian during a recession.
Increasing taxes reduce the budget deficit and as a Keynesian you want as large a deficit as needed during a recession. Not to mention the supply side effects which will worsen the recession.
Keynes was great but his politician followers weren't that great.
I'd say I would agree with the new Keynesians or maybe market monetarists.

Friedman was a pragmatic libertarian, he saw freedom as rather important but he wasn't an anarchocapitalist and was willing to have a negative income tax for the poor. He came up with it and it's quite funny that lots of "progressives" seem to like it now or its sister-concept, basic income.
There is some quote from Hayek about letting the state provide healthcare and some help for the poorest from the road to serfdom so he wasn't Hoppe-tier stupid. (Well Austrian business cycle is wrong but let's forgive Hayek for once.)

>What country is that?
Spain.

I hope the ECB starts easing monetary policy to help you. If you want someone to blame for your troubles blame the ECB. Germany is still worried about hyperinflation due to 1923 but the problem now is that you need inflation. PP or ciudanos?

All the four main parties advocate for more public spending. From less 'more public spending' to more: PP

A lot of Constitution of Liberty is going to go right over your head as a "new reader". Though it's written for a popular audience, it assumes a pretty comfortable familiarity with concepts from political philosophy and economics that you probably lack. The subject matter is broader than in Capitalism and Freedom, and Hayek takes a lot more time to develop his arguments, each supporting the others like threads in mesh webbing. It could be a very rewarding read, but maybe not for you at this point in your life.

I like Krugman ( his articles in the 1990s are great ) but since the W bush era has has become too political. Stiglitz is far too ideological for my liking, okay we get it you did one Nobel prize winning paper about market failure but that doesn't mean you have to support Venezuela. In the book I'm reading about China the author essentially states stiglitz is wrong about collective firms being the best and then backs this point up with evidence. It felt good desu.

Dude Pigouvian taxes lmao.

Capitalism and Freedom is NOT and economics books. Its a political treatise and what economics he talks about is all supported by rhetorical arguments.

99% of what Hayek/Friendman, the Chicago school and Austrian economists may be correct, but none of it actually solves the problems facing the economy.

>a reactionary feudal dystopia

That's not reactionary. That's revolutionary. "Reactionary" is one of the most ill-used word ever along with "litteral".

>austrian economics
>correct

their ideology is so wrong they actually have to make "facts don't matter" an integral part of it.

>including the size and shape of vegetables within common market

Every fucking moron knows this is a myth.

Neoliberalism is a reduction of any complexities of society. Therefore they can shout at loud and even dumb people understand their simplistic arguments.

There is strong connection between populistic euroskepticism (which is soaked with euromyths and lies) and neoliberalism.

They are both anti-intelectual movements based on destruction of structures.

No plan, no vision, narcissism and vasteland.

Wrong m8
econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html
Neoliberalism is not a dumb reduction of things.
The misunderstanding is off the charts. It's not what the guardian told you it was.

Chicago = good
Austrian = bad

Friedman uses evidence from his own work ( monetary history of the united states ) in the chapter on monetary policy in C&F.

What's wrong with pigouvian taxes? Everytime I mention them someone replies something like:

>Pigouvian taxes

>It's not what the guardian told you it was.
Are you talking about that infamous George Monbiot article by chance?
I remember seeing it translated into my mother language and published in a newspaper from my country.

Accounting for the real cost of negative externalities and converting them into some monetary form as well as actually implementing the tax are two shortcomings.

Yeah I know what they are but what's the big deal?

That article is truly cancer.
It's a load of nonsense.
The essay by Friedman that he links to essentially debunks half of the gibberish he spews.

>>including the size and shape of vegetables within common market
>Every fucking moron knows this is a myth.

europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20090706STO57744 0 DOC XML V0//EN

"Wonky fruit & vegetables make a comeback!"

The funny thing is that the term 'neoliberalism' is not even properly defined in the article.
It is clear that the term has become a buzzword for statists, bureaucrat lovers and leftists.
They just use it to define everything they don't like. EU? Neoliberal. Euroskepticism? Neoliberal. Obama? Neoliberal. Trump? Neoliberal.

And, opposed to what claims, euroskepticism in my country (Spain) is mainly far left, not "neoliberal".
And French euroskepticism (Marine Le Pen's party) is not precisely pro free trade whatsoever: she has claimed explicitly that she is against it and also opposes TTIP. So liberal/neoliberal. Wow. Almost Syriza-tier, I'd say.
It's not that "correlation does not equal causation", is that there is not even correlation in most cases.

But yeah, disliking massive public spending, uncontrolled budget deficit, statist paternalism and excessive bureaucracy makes you a "neoliberal", a "Rand fanboy", an "anti-european", an "anti-intellectual" and sometimes, a "fascist". Right.

I think Road to Serfdom is better than those two, since que provides his arguments more directly against the central planning and how the state should work. In the part that he talks about the role of the state, chapter 3 i guess, it's really interesting and essential for nowdays neoliberal policy understanding.

Sooooo yeah if you haven't read it yet, then road to serfdom is a nice piece to start and is quite important in the athours portfólio.

Oh, and i forgot. There is, in road to serfdom, the points in which the author defends that his doctrine differs that from the classic liberal Laissez-faire.

The strangest thing is that Scandinavian countries, the darlings of the left, have undertaken neoliberal reforms, spending cuts, deregulation, privatisations , school voucher systems, reducing welfare etc. Neoliberalism allows for poverty reducing methods such as tax credits or negative income tax.

Be warned, Hayek is not the best example of a neoliberal. Sure his views have many things in common but Friedman is more neoliberal.