In class, I mention neoliberal policies in Pinochet’s Chile and ask the students, “Who knows what neoliberalism is?”
“It’s the reason why we can’t find any jobs, people are losing their homes, and banks have been stiffing us left and right,” one student says in a loud and angry voice.
Neo-liberalism is what it should be called “social-corpocracy”.
LikeLike
Would have to disagree here: neoliberalism is disdained by many large businesses, as many such businesses benefit highly from regulations that make it too difficult for smaller companies to compete with them, subsidies from the government, government contracts, and bailouts when needed by said businesses. Neoliberalism is generally against all of that (regulations, or a lot of regulation anyway, subsidies, bailouts).
LikeLike
You actually believe that? They must be working a very elaborate “briar patch” strategy.
LikeLike
Clever lad.
LikeLike
Recognising its effects is not the same as being able to say what it actually is.
LikeLike
Ha ha, so they confused neoconservatism with neoliberalism. Who can keep all those neos straight?
LikeLike
I do think neoliberal policy towards the financial industry played a role in the financial crisis, but I would not say neoconservatism caused the crisis. Neoconservatism has a great respect and appreciation for the free market and private sector, but does not have the same level of faith in it that neoliberalism tends to. For example, neoconservatism can be fine with government regulation, a social welfare state (including some form of national health insurance program), taxation of certain things, and so forth.
LikeLike
That loud and angry student didn’t know what he or she was talking about. Can’t address the specifics of Chile’s economic policies under Pinochet except for the at least partial privatization of that country’s pension system, but I can address that neoliberalism would not have caused those things. If, under a socialist regime people were given things under state subsidies then those subsidies were removed, then some people would suffer adverse affects. The problem is that the socialist regime shouldn’t have given out the subsidies in the first place because they tend to create national debts and dependency. That sort of economic correction rights what the previous government shouldn’t have done in the first place.
Dealing with specifics, economic neoliberalism would have created more jobs by opening markets and decreasing oppressive government regulations. I don’t know to what extent this was practiced in Chile. People losing homes…would need more information about Chile’s housing market for that time period to properly answer. Regarding banks…what did the student mean that they were “stiffing us left and right”? Does this mean they didn’t loan out money, had high interest rates, wouldn’t issue credit? How were they being stiffed? In the USA we have a Federal Reserve to set interest rates, and credit card holders are rated based on their credit history. Banks may be hesitant to make loans to people who are high risk or they suffered a lot of foreclosures. Why are banks going to loan out money (other people’s money) to people who are not going to repay the loans? Whatever those reasons are, they have little to do with neoliberalism.
LikeLike
People who say silly things like “socialism is when governments give subsidies” should not express opinions about politics.
Has nobody told you before that you are a very stupid person?
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment