Talk:Economic liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] proposed mergers with Neoliberalism or Classical economics

There are currently 2 proposed mergers:

To avoid duplicating arguments, discussion and voting on both mergers should be held here. I have moved material from Talk:Classical liberalism to here to prevent two parallel debates leading to confusion or duplication. Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The aricles Liberal theory of economics and Neoliberalism deal with the same school of thought, mainly from economic and political perspectives respectively. "Neoliberalism" is a POV label applied almost entirely by its critics and hence inappropriate as the name of the article. Joestynes 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge Neoliberalism into Liberal theory of economics as per nomination Joestynes 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm? Liberal theory of economics, albiet similar, is different than neoliberalism. Taken as two words, "neo" means new, and "liberalism" refers to the liberal theory of economics. While neoliberalism does have basic origins in liberalism, there are some fundemental differences of the new version. Including a top-down structure (such as the World Bank), and the encouragment of multinational oligarchical (and in some cases, monopolistic) capitalist enterprises.
If you take offense to this please don't answer it: May I ask where/how you learned about economic policy? As far as i know neoliberalism has no other term it can be defined under. --sansvoix 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That said, I belive the current neoliberalism article could use some proffesional work. I sympathise to anyone who reads it and wonders why the page exists. --sansvoix 05:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I presume that's a vote for Don't merge, sansvoix? "Old" liberalism is at Classical liberalism. The article contains the line Some portray neoliberalism as the imposition of "free markets from the top-down,", which I presume includes you, but appaarently not everybody. It also states it has been promoted for the benefit of multinational corporations through the largest international financial institutions of the world-economy which is pretty POV. The Economist would appear a prime apologist for neoliberalism but only uses the word ironically or in scare quotes. If there is no NPOV name it is a POV concept. The article reads like constructing a straw man by cherry-picking aspects of rightwing governments' and NGOs' policies and inferring a coherent theory from them. While opposition to liberal economics is an important topic deserving its own article, that should be distinct from defining what is being opposed. It seems significant that Neoliberalism is not part of the Template:Liberalism series. I think trying to distinguish neoliberalism from classical liberalism at the end of the article is a bit of a cop-out: how many people would actually say "I'm opposed to neoliberalism, but I support free trade, low taxes and tarriffs, and small government."? Joestynes 09:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. "Neoliberalism" has been given a meaning which includes also other elements than the pure liberal theory of economics. If the articles would be merged, that would mean, that liberal theory of economics would be also be given meanings that don't belong to it. Maybe that's the motive of the person who suggested it in the first place, I don't know, but in anyway things are what they are, and thoughts which don't have anything to do with economical theory shouldn't be messed up with an article about economical theory.--213.243.157.117 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe, the issues you have with the neoliberalism article are compleatly justified, editors rather than look up the evidence backing the claims (which can be hard to do regarding articles on theory) instead they seem to have used words such as "most believe"... It comes across as very unproffesional. But I am still confused about your plan for merge, as neoliberalism is a distinct academic term, as is the liberal theory. Here is an excerpt I found, It shows a difference between the two articles you wish to merge:--sansvoix 08:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea that everyone should be an entrepreneur is distinctly neoliberal. Early liberals never expected the majority of the population to own property, let alone run a business. (The participation of the poor in the market was limited to accepting any work they were offered). The practices on the flexibilised labour market would seem strange to the early liberals. For instance, individuals set up a one-person employment agency with one person on the books, themselves - partly for tax reasons, but also to meet the ideal of the entrepreneur. Policy to increase the number of entrepreneurs is typically neoliberal, although ironically it must be implemented by the State. A classic market-liberal would not say that a free market is less of a free market, because only 10% of the population are entrepreneurs. For neoliberals it is not sufficient that there is a market: there must be nothing which is not market.
This article is supposed to explain the ideas which are common for the liberals of all the times, and perhaps explain the differences between different liberal schools of thought. If the neoliberalism differs from early liberalism, the articles on neoliberalism and Liberal theory of economics obviously can't be merged. Anyway, I think that genuine liberal thought isn't consententialist, it doesn't take a stance on what should be the outcome, as long as it is reached in a voluntarily.--213.243.157.117 13:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Sansvoix is correct, there are important differences between neoliberals and liberals- the later is often called classical liberalism to distinguish it in economics. It would make sense to merge this artical with the classical liberalism artical. Themissinglint 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added a request to merge this with classical liberalism, as suggested.--sansvoix 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion of that merge moved here Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge - Neo-liberalism pertains to foreign policy, i.e. international free trade. Liberal Theory of Economics is more general. Hogeye 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. But almost all above arguments are completely justified, including Joe's: something should be done with "neoliberalism" which is a straw man. In that article, it should be emphasized that the concept is a straw man. That article should be completely rewritten. IMF etc. are social democratic Keynesian organizations founded for global governance, as opposed to global freedom. True, having hired many economists, their views on the economy have become somewhat rational but inconsistent and sometimes conservative, not liberal, often political, not scientific. (This should not be mixed with American liberalism which is only partially liberal and even less "neoliberal".) 80.186.243.217 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge Neoliberalism in this article. but 'merge this article in Classical liberalism. Electionworld 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism The basis for this merge is the fact that economic liberalism is simply the economic half of Classical Liberalism. Until around the 20th century the political and economic aspects of Classical Liberalism were not considered distinct, so they probabaly should be on the same page, especially considering Classical Liberalism is not an exceptionaly long article. --sansvoix 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding a vote to this comment moved from the other talk page. Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think classical liberalism has more in common with Classical economics than with liberal economics. Of course since Marx was by some measures a classical economist, merging that is a no-no. Perhaps liberal economics could be merged with Neoclassical economics. Joestynes 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Dont merge the current neoliberal page is a mess of "pluralistic" understandings of a signle definition. -gibby
The intention would be not simply to cut and paste the content but to reassign portions of the mess at "Neoliberalism" to various appropriate pages, and then redirect "Neoliberalism" to "Liberal theory or economics". All those arguing against a merge do seem to agree that parts of the current article do not belong specifically to "neoliberalism", and that "neoliberalism" is a more specific concept. I don't know if anyone will agree on which bits to expunge or transfer. Joestynes 10:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't merge

I don't think that any of the topics should be merged, predominantly because they each have their own histories and are evolving quite differently in the manner which we see, interpret and use them. Merging them will only confuse readers, not enlighten them.

[edit] Free Market Ideal

The article states that Economic Liberalism is founded on a Free Market ideal. Although this to my knowledge is true, it makes little sense to draw conclusions as to which U.S. party is more in accord with the ideal. This is so for two reasons. First, it does not seem appropriate to mention facts on the English version of Wikipedia that only pertains to US politics. If US parties are mentioned, I belive that (e.g.) Australian-, Brittish-, Canadian- parties ought to be mentioned as well. Secondly, where U.S. parties stand on economic issues may simply depend on their conception of the Free Market ideal. For example, most free market theorists (I dare to say) believe that a free market economy operates at an optimal when there is competition. As a consequence, most theorists would say that monopoly (even oligapoly) arrests the economy. Theorists differ however on the extent they will go to protect the free market. Some claim that all monopoly is bad for the economy whereas others say that only "coercive monopoly" is bad. My point is, an advocate of tougher regulations on corporations may do so precisely in order to optimize the free market. Likewise, free market is based on the idea (I dare to say) that all actors (e.g. corporation) partaking in the market must internalize their (e.g. production-) costs, and not roll them over on others (e.g. consumers). Some theorists accept the use of externalities by corporations as a means to lower production costs, whereas other theorists believe that we ought to eliminate externalities. According to this later view, in order to stay true to the Free Market ideal, externalities must be eliminated, and tougher regulations and taxes on corporations are hence appropriate. PJ 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking buying, owning, infiltrating, manipulating so called 'free press' and 'democracy'

Capitalism is basically good without monopoly, oligopoly positions, price deals, etc.

But this Wikipedia article and the general article about "Capitalism" lacks a very important part:

That about how actually 'free press' and 'democracy' are owned, bought, manipulated, infiltrated, etc. by big money, interests, 'high' families, etc. Instead of real democracy (vote for vote, no manipulated leaders) backed up by real free press, to control Capitalism.

[edit] Rename: Economic liberalism

This page should be moved to economic liberalism, in line with classical liberalism, social liberalism etc. Any objections? William Quill 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/o/Talk%7EEconomic_liberalism_0ba5.html"