Thank you for your excellent presentation. I was curious about neoliberalism. Some of the tenants of neoliberalism seem to conflict with empirical findings about the causes and consequences of poverty I remember from sociology courses. Neoliberalism sounds kind of like an economic theory that has been proven invalid but is still applied because it reduces cognitive dissonance and helps the wealthy rationalize their behavior in a culture where socioeconomic inequality causes severe harm.
Really glad you mentioned noblesse oblige. I usually bring it up in contrast to laissez faire. In a way, laissez faire plays out like an inversion of The Golden Rule.
I struggle to see Neoliberalism as anything other than a pseudo-philosophical veneer on what is in essence greed and the desire for exploitation. I don't actually think it compares well with the original 18th and 19th century Liberalism, because that movement was pursued as a way to genuinely benefit the majority of the public by liberating them from the exploitation of the the landed elite and to improve the quality of life for everyone by eliminating the economic protectionism that was a feature of how things used to be. Liberalism of course failed in that it led to even greater disparities and poverty especially in the burgeoning cities, a situation which was responded to with the rise of socialism, social democracy, the 'New Liberalism' of Liberal figures such as Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse which supported the creation of a welfare state. Those advocating for Neoliberalism today know full well what happens when the kind of economic liberalisation, Laissez-faire approach they want is implemented - the rich get richer as their ability to exploit others increases, and the public sphere shrinks and the vulnerable become ever more vulnerable. This is especially evident ever since Ronald Reagan in the US and also here in the UK since Margaret Thatcher - the difference being that the UK still had the remnants of an actually left wing labour movement than was able to prevent some of the excesses that unfortunately Americans have had inflicted on them. I think neoliberalism particularly resonates in the US because it sounds as if it is all about Liberty which of course is central to American self identity. In reality neoliberalism does not protect the liberty of the people - it just serves to liberate the rich and powerful from moral restraint and responsibility towards others.
Glad to see that you're back!
Thank you for your excellent presentation. I was curious about neoliberalism. Some of the tenants of neoliberalism seem to conflict with empirical findings about the causes and consequences of poverty I remember from sociology courses. Neoliberalism sounds kind of like an economic theory that has been proven invalid but is still applied because it reduces cognitive dissonance and helps the wealthy rationalize their behavior in a culture where socioeconomic inequality causes severe harm.
Really glad you mentioned noblesse oblige. I usually bring it up in contrast to laissez faire.
In a way, laissez faire plays out like an inversion of The Golden Rule.
I struggle to see Neoliberalism as anything other than a pseudo-philosophical veneer on what is in essence greed and the desire for exploitation. I don't actually think it compares well with the original 18th and 19th century Liberalism, because that movement was pursued as a way to genuinely benefit the majority of the public by liberating them from the exploitation of the the landed elite and to improve the quality of life for everyone by eliminating the economic protectionism that was a feature of how things used to be. Liberalism of course failed in that it led to even greater disparities and poverty especially in the burgeoning cities, a situation which was responded to with the rise of socialism, social democracy, the 'New Liberalism' of Liberal figures such as Leonard Trelawney Hobhouse which supported the creation of a welfare state. Those advocating for Neoliberalism today know full well what happens when the kind of economic liberalisation, Laissez-faire approach they want is implemented - the rich get richer as their ability to exploit others increases, and the public sphere shrinks and the vulnerable become ever more vulnerable. This is especially evident ever since Ronald Reagan in the US and also here in the UK since Margaret Thatcher - the difference being that the UK still had the remnants of an actually left wing labour movement than was able to prevent some of the excesses that unfortunately Americans have had inflicted on them.
I think neoliberalism particularly resonates in the US because it sounds as if it is all about Liberty which of course is central to American self identity. In reality neoliberalism does not protect the liberty of the people - it just serves to liberate the rich and powerful from moral restraint and responsibility towards others.
Curious how similar neoliberalism is to neoconservatism.