I would contend that Neoliberalism is quite different from EA in that it is much less an open question of how to produce value, and much more a somewhat dogmatic set of theoretical ideas on how the economy produces the most value (the same could be said of its counterparts, Marxism/Socialism).
In Neoliberalist thought, government regulation is largely about ensuring competitive markets by avoiding monopolies. Other than that, government should interfere as little as possible with markets. As an example, ‘market failure’ isn’t mentioned a single time in the very long Wikipedia article on Neoliberalism. Rather, a common criticism of Neoliberalism is that its emphasis on deregulation leads to market failures such as environmental degradation.
Looking at the Reddit forum you linked to, it seems very much to be the same ideology that I am talking about. From “About Us” in the sidebar:
”With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary.”
and
”The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.”
The only surprise I find among the “Policies we support include” is carbon taxes. It seems that these neoliberals have been less dogmatic regarding market failures than is my general impression of prominent thinkers in the ideology.
EDIT: Reading up on the views of Milton Friedman (one of the 2-3 most famous and influential Neoliberal thinkers) on negative externalities, it seems that he may well have been in favour of solving those problems through the specific mechanism of taxing the use. So it seems even the carbon tax policy is very much “classical” Neoliberalism, where markets solve humanity’s problems through price mechanisms (not that I don’t personally agree with this to an extent).
Sure, which suggests that either in this specific case or in general your contention that “Other than that, government should interfere as little as possible with markets” doesn’t hold.
FWIW, I do think Reddit neoliberalism has important differences to EA (mainly that it has a strong preference for free markets and deregulation), but I think this is still compatible with considering Reddit neoliberalism to be “close to EA but not EA”.
On another note, I find it a bit misleading that you edited your original answer to the question after my reply, without indicating you made an edit, and then added this reply to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time.
Sorry, I didn’t give it much thought. Happy to change.
I felt a bit accused by your comment. In particular the assumption that I was deliberately trying to mislead others “added this reply to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time”. Was that what you intended me to feel?
I didn’t mean that it was your intention to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time, but that is the effect of it. It makes it look like I didn’t read your original answer properly before responding. (Thanks for changing it now btw)
I don’t know what your intentions were, but your replies, including singling out the part of my previous reply that concedes that Neoliberals do use a limited set of tools to address certain types of market failures, in order to show me that I was wrong, don’t seem to take seriously what I was writing or aim to “approach disagreements with curiousity”. Maybe this has something to do with the style of my replies? If so, please let me know.
EDIT: To make it completely clear, I am the anonymous poster from above BTW. My username was cleared due to some forum adjustments.
I would contend that Neoliberalism is quite different from EA in that it is much less an open question of how to produce value, and much more a somewhat dogmatic set of theoretical ideas on how the economy produces the most value (the same could be said of its counterparts, Marxism/Socialism).
In Neoliberalist thought, government regulation is largely about ensuring competitive markets by avoiding monopolies. Other than that, government should interfere as little as possible with markets. As an example, ‘market failure’ isn’t mentioned a single time in the very long Wikipedia article on Neoliberalism. Rather, a common criticism of Neoliberalism is that its emphasis on deregulation leads to market failures such as environmental degradation.
I suggest that I’m taking about a specific group of Neoliberals. I don’t think they are the same group the Wikipedia page represents.
Looking at the Reddit forum you linked to, it seems very much to be the same ideology that I am talking about. From “About Us” in the sidebar:
”With collectivism on the rise, a group of liberal philosophers, economists, and journalists met in Paris at the Walter Lippmann Colloquium in 1938 to discuss the future prospects of liberalism. While the participants could not agree on a comprehensive programme, there was universal agreement that a new liberal (neoliberal) project, able to resist the tendency towards ever more state control without falling back into the dogma of complete laissez-faire, was necessary.”
and
”The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through preventing monopoly, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress.”
The only surprise I find among the “Policies we support include” is carbon taxes. It seems that these neoliberals have been less dogmatic regarding market failures than is my general impression of prominent thinkers in the ideology.
EDIT: Reading up on the views of Milton Friedman (one of the 2-3 most famous and influential Neoliberal thinkers) on negative externalities, it seems that he may well have been in favour of solving those problems through the specific mechanism of taxing the use. So it seems even the carbon tax policy is very much “classical” Neoliberalism, where markets solve humanity’s problems through price mechanisms (not that I don’t personally agree with this to an extent).
Sure, which suggests that either in this specific case or in general your contention that “Other than that, government should interfere as little as possible with markets” doesn’t hold.
FWIW, I do think Reddit neoliberalism has important differences to EA (mainly that it has a strong preference for free markets and deregulation), but I think this is still compatible with considering Reddit neoliberalism to be “close to EA but not EA”.
On another note, I find it a bit misleading that you edited your original answer to the question after my reply, without indicating you made an edit, and then added this reply to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time.
Sorry, I didn’t give it much thought. Happy to change.
I felt a bit accused by your comment. In particular the assumption that I was deliberately trying to mislead others “added this reply to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time”. Was that what you intended me to feel?
Hope you’re well.
I didn’t mean that it was your intention to make it look like you were suggesting this the whole time, but that is the effect of it. It makes it look like I didn’t read your original answer properly before responding. (Thanks for changing it now btw)
I don’t know what your intentions were, but your replies, including singling out the part of my previous reply that concedes that Neoliberals do use a limited set of tools to address certain types of market failures, in order to show me that I was wrong, don’t seem to take seriously what I was writing or aim to “approach disagreements with curiousity”. Maybe this has something to do with the style of my replies? If so, please let me know.
EDIT: To make it completely clear, I am the anonymous poster from above BTW. My username was cleared due to some forum adjustments.
It feels like we got off on the wrong foot. I’m sorry that we didn’t communicate better.
Let’s leave this for a bit. I how you’re well and I’m sure we’d get on in person.