Everyone hates neoliberalism because in the process of creating "economic growth" it failed in every way that actually matters to the majority of the population.
Sure, we have infinite financial growth, but we also have:
-Wage stagnation
-Crippling medical debt
-Staggeringly high rent and housing prices
-Climate collapse and pollution
-Ridiculously expensive, unhealthy food
And so on.
What does economic growth actually mean? It means the amount of monetary the system produces is going up. That's all. It says nothing about how that money is spent or how it's distributed within that country. Which means, from the average person's perspective, it is *absolutely meaningless.*
Neoliberalism "works" in that it makes an abstract number go up better than any other system so far. But in every way that matters to the average person on the street, or anyone who cares about the standard of living of the general public, it's an abject failure. We have a greater level of wealth inequality in the United States than the French did right before the French Revolution. Billionaires write policy and give speeches about how AI will bring us the future while the general public wonders how they're going to afford food.
People aren't turning against neoliberalism because it didn't do what it set out to do. They're turning against it did exactly that, and ruined their lives in the process.
Wages stagnated most in developed countries that were least neoliberal, and increased the most in those that were and are more neoliberal. Compare the US to Europe.
Medical is the absolute antithesis of neoliberalism. This actually contradicts your point.
Housing unaffordability is again a problem in exactly those places that were least neoliberal. Again, your example contradicts you.
Climate “collapse”? WTF. What part of the climate collapsed? Pollution and carbon emissions per capita dropped most in the most neoliberal economies.
Food? This has gone down in inflation adjusted terms. A lot, now being pretty much an insignificant cost to most families compared to every single prior era since the advent of agriculture 10k years ago.
What does "medical is the antithesis of neoliberal" even mean? And all of these are problems in the United States, labeled here as the most neoliberal.
As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."
That the medical industry (followed by housing) is the least neoliberal industry and the most screwed up. Both are poster children for run-amok absurd regulation, price interference, subsidized demand and general disdain for open markets.
I will agree that economic growth (especially in Asia) has contributed to global warming. It is also the solution longer term.
The medical industry is, if anything, heavily under-regulated. You know what you get when a corner of the medical sector is allowed to self regulate? Martin Skreli. Look it up.
"Least neoliberal and most screwed up" - This is backwards. Healthcare and housing are screwed up precisely because they're the most regulated, not least.
Healthcare Regulation Reality Check
The US healthcare system is a regulatory nightmare, not a free market:
Certificate of Need laws block new hospitals from opening without government permission
Scope of practice laws prevent nurse practitioners and physician assistants from providing care they're trained for
Licensing restrictions create artificial doctor shortages (we could train more, but AMA-backed limits keep supply tight)
FDA approval takes 10+ years and costs billions, blocking cheaper alternatives
Insurance mandates require coverage for services people don't need, inflating premiums
Tax policy ties insurance to employment (accident of WWII wage controls), destroying individual market
EMTALA requires expensive ER care for non-emergencies with no payment mechanism
Prescription requirements force doctor visits for routine medications available over-the-counter globally
The one deregulated corner of healthcare? Cosmetic surgery, LASIK, and cash-pay clinics. Guess what happened there? Prices dropped 30-50% while quality skyrocketed. LASIK went from $2,200/eye (1998) to $600/eye today—while getting safer and more effective.
Housing Is the Same Story
"Run-amok regulation" is literally the problem:
Zoning laws make 75%+ of urban land illegal to build apartments on
Environmental reviews add 2-7 years and millions in costs
Building codes mandate expensive features beyond safety
Parking minimums require 1-2 spaces per unit (adding $50k-150k per unit)
Height restrictions prevent density where people want to live
Rent control (where it exists) destroys new construction incentives
Tokyo builds more housing annually than all of California—because they deregulated zoning in the 1990s. Result? Stable/falling rents despite population growth.
"Subsidized Demand"
You're completely right here. Subsidizing demand without increasing supply just inflates prices:
Housing: Mortgage interest deduction, FHA loans, low down-payment programs → more buyers chasing same supply → prices explode
Education: Federal student loans → unlimited demand for college → tuition up 1,200% since 1980
This is Econ 101. Subsidize demand + restrict supply = price explosion.
The Martin Shkreli Red Herring
Shkreli is a perfect example of regulatory failure, not free markets:
He bought rights to Daraprim, a 60-year-old drug
Raised price from $13.50 to $750/pill
Why could he do this? FDA makes generic approval so expensive and slow that no competitor bothered entering
In a free market, generic competitors would flood in within months at the old price
The FDA's regulatory moat protected his monopoly
Countries with looser drug approval have cheaper medications—because competition actually works when allowed.
Bottom line: Calling healthcare and housing "neoliberal" when they're regulatory capture case studies is like calling North Korea a free market because the Kim family is rich. The problems aren't from too much freedom—they're from government-enforced cartels and artificial scarcity.
"As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."" Thanks for YOUR opinion "sparky"!
Climate change is cyclical , natural and fairly mild. The warming that occurred to "defrost" the world started some 12,000 years ago ! "The current interglacial period, known as the Holocene epoch, started at 2.00 PM on a Tuesday in March approximately 11,700 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. It marked the beginning of a warmer climate that has lasted to the present day, which is why it's considered the current warmer stage within the larger Quaternary ice age."
The increased CO2 level has , perhaps , provided some increased warming , but it has resuscitated and sustained plant growth and , in a sense , enabled all the oxygen and the food production , and thereby enabled ALL the present civilisations to occur . Far from "reducing this planet to a cinder" , this current interglacial is rather cool by comparison with previous interglacials ! "A new study predicts the next ice-age should be about 10,000 years away. But the researchers say record rates of fossil fuel burning that are increasing global temperatures will likely delay this due date." [ Which should also state : " Since none of us will be here to witness it , and those that are will soon die out , our guess is approximately as good as yours !"...just like those "Climate Models" !?? ].
Now......should the burning of "stored sunlight" [ carbonaceous fuels] actually extend this current interglacial period that HAS TO BE A GOOD THING surely !
It will allow "our" descendants the opportunity to enjoy the experience of LIVING
much as "we" have , for a little longer ! Unless they can develop an effective means of survival BENEATH THE ICE-SHEETS , growing plants for food and for oxygen , for about 100,000 years then there will be very few survivors to take advantage of the NEXT warm interglacial.......should there even be one !
So....perhaps YOU should give that some thought next time before you complain !
Oh ! And just to satisfy my curiosity , what particular DISASTER or ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE can you name , specifically attributable to the current CLIMATE CHANGE , bearing in mind that "good old Mother Nature " has already managed to kill off 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS that have ever existed on this planet WITHOUT any help from HUMANS ????
And NO ! Storms , tornadoes , floods , fires , earthquakes , tsunamis , volcanic eruptions , mud-slides , droughts , etc are NOT increasing ........they are occurring LESS frequently .......and due to modern mitigation........are claiming fewer lives every year.....a decrease of 'disaster deaths ' of about 98% over the last 100 years !
This decline is not because there are fewer disasters, but because of a greater ability to prevent, manage, and recover from them through improved early warning systems, better infrastructure, and more effective disaster management.
Economic losses from climate disasters are skyrocketing even as deaths decline. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk markets (Florida, California) because payouts are exploding.
"NAME A SPECIFIC DISASTER"
Here are disasters with clear climate change attribution:
• 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome: Killed 1,400+ people, temperatures made 150x more likely by climate change
• 2010 Russian heat wave: 55,000 deaths, climate models show it wouldn't have occurred without warming
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching: 50%+ of corals dead from ocean warming (1.5°C increase)
• Arctic sea ice loss: Down 40% since 1979, disrupting ecosystems and indigenous communities
• Permafrost thaw: Releasing methane, destabilizing infrastructure across the Arctic
• Glacier loss: Threatening water supplies for billions (Himalayas, Andes)
The science of "attribution studies" can now calculate exactly how much climate change increased the probability/severity of specific events.
"MOTHER NATURE KILLED 99.9% OF SPECIES"
Holy false equivalence. Yes, extinction is natural. That doesn't mean:
• We should accelerate it 100-1,000x above background rates
• Mass extinctions are "fine" (they're catastrophic, recovery takes millions of years)
We're currently in the Sixth Mass Extinction, driven by humans. Previous mass extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts and massive volcanism—and they were disasters, not "natural so therefore okay."
THE CORE DECEPTION
This entire argument conflates:
1. "Climate has changed naturally" with "therefore this change is natural"
2. "Earth will survive" with "human civilization will be fine"
3. "Some warming might be okay" with "unlimited warming is good"
4. "Disaster deaths declining" with "disasters not worsening"
It's intellectual whack-a-mole using half-truths to deny overwhelming scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization globally confirms: climate change is real, human-caused, dangerous, and solvable.
The irony? This person implicitly admits technology and wealth solve problems—but denies the problem requiring the most urgent technological solution.
[ Utopia means “ No place “ !! A total fantasy !!! ]
What a load of horse—-droppings …..on your part !
Firstly : WEATHER EVENTS are NOT CLIMATE EVENTS !
Secondly : The coral BLEACHING on the Great Barrier Reef is a natural and frequent occurrence. The Polyps shed their symbiotic algae , zooxanthellae , BUT ARE NOT DEAD. They simply ‘take on board a new algae !The corals , supposedly most affected , have now BLOSSOMED AGAIN !
Thirdly: And THIS is your most egregious failure : overwhelming scientific consensus. ! CONCENSUS MEANS “BELIEF”….it’s NO LONGER SCIENCE….IT’S BECOME “RELIGION” AND YOU ARE AN ARDENT ignorant ADHERENT !
There is LOGICALLY no such thing as scientific consensus……ONLY SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONING……..and you are “Up S#!7 CREEK without a paddle !
Real median wages are up ~30% since 1979 and have grown substantially over longer periods. The "stagnation" myth comes from cherry-picking 1973 as a start date (peak of unusual post-WWII conditions) or confusing household income (affected by changing household composition) with individual wages.
Medical Debt
This conflates "medical debt exists" with "things are getting worse" and ignores the income side of the equation. Actually:
US disposable income is 20-40% higher than most European countries, Canada, Australia (per Luxembourg Income Study)
Even lower-income Americans (20th percentile) often have higher disposable income than the median in countries with "free" healthcare
So even when Americans face medical costs, they typically have more money left over than someone in a "free healthcare" country who paid $0 out-of-pocket
Plus, we're getting dramatically more healthcare value:
Life expectancy: 70 years (1960) → 79 years (pre-COVID)
Infant mortality down 90% since 1960
Cancer death rates down 33% since 1991
We can now treat/cure diseases that were death sentences decades ago
Those "free" systems aren't actually free—they're pre-paid through 20-25% VAT, much higher income taxes, and double the payroll taxes. Americans just have the money upfront instead. Medical bankruptcy claims are also wildly exaggerated (studies count any bankruptcy where someone had any medical debt, even when job loss or credit cards were the real cause).
Housing Prices
This one requires nuance. Housing costs have increased in desirable metro areas, but:
Median home size: 1,000 sq ft (1950s) → 2,300 sq ft today
Modern homes include central air, multiple bathrooms, attached garages—luxuries in the past
Quality-adjusted, we're getting more house
The real problem? Restrictive zoning laws preventing construction (artificial scarcity, not capitalism failing)
Also, homeownership rates remain around 65%—roughly historical average.
Climate Collapse
"Collapse" is apocalyptic rhetoric unsupported by data:
Air pollution in developed nations has plummeted (US: 78% drop in major pollutants since 1970)
Water quality vastly improved
Deforestation in developed countries reversed (US forest coverage increasing)
Clean energy costs dropped 90%+ (solar/wind now cheapest energy sources)
Agricultural yields up 3x since 1960 on roughly same land
Climate change is real and requires action, but technological progress is solving it. Emissions are plateauing/declining in developed economies while living standards rise.
Expensive, Unhealthy Food
Objectively false:
Americans spend ~10% of income on food vs. 20%+ historically and 30-40%+ in developing nations
Food has never been cheaper relative to wages
Variety and quality are incomparable—year-round fresh produce, international cuisines, organic options
"Unhealthy" food exists because of abundance and choice, not scarcity. People can afford calorie-dense foods. Obesity is a wealth problem, not a poverty problem (historically, only the rich were fat).
The Core Rebuttal
These talking points cherry-pick problems while ignoring that every metric of human welfare has improved: poverty rates down, literacy up, child mortality down 90%+, access to technology/information/entertainment exploded, work hours declined, retirement savings up.
You're comparing modern problems to an imaginary past that never existed. Life in 1950 meant: no internet, limited medical care, worse food variety, actual wage stagnation for women/minorities, more dangerous jobs, shorter lifespans, and fewer opportunities.
Progress isn't perfect, but denying it happened requires ignoring overwhelming evidence.
That Fed graph you provide shows that in Q2 2014 the median wage was lower than in Q2 1979. The increase is really concentrated after 2014. Interestingly, this is about the time when central banks started complaining inflation forecasts were low. Also, the employment-population ratio began to recover a bit from the post-2007 slash (until 2020).
After 2007 the same paycheck would have had to support more persons. A slight increase in employment required a somewhat large salary raise, suggesting the incentive to work had taken a hit.
okay wait a minute. isn't the Life expectancy in canada also 79-80 years? yet we have free healthcare. And isn't the infant mortality rate around the same in every western country, including canada? same thing with the Cancer death rates and being able to treat/cure diseases that where death sentences years ago.
Like i don't think everything should be free and think some of the medical regulations are dumb (why is their a limit on the amount of doctors we can have?). But what you listed isn't an indictment on free healthcare. It a pro of neoliberalism.
i'd say neoliberalisms worst problem is that it's most popular champions (or at least the ones that get pushed onto everyone) are just the worst type of person. It's the MLM scammers who say you should work 80 hour work weeks and never retire. Mean while they make a living selling you books on how to get rich.
I'm not saying that all neo liberals are saying "we should work 80 hours a week". Nor am i saying we are currently working 80 hour work weeks because if neo liberalism.
All I'm saying is that a lot of the scammers and people saying we should do 80 hour work weeks are pro neo liberal. So people confuse them for actual neo liberal policies.
Also you say repeat.but i haven't seen a lot of neo liberals say they want a welfare state. I've seen them always criticize it. That might be another issue. Like in this entire article I read I saw more critiques of a welfare state than advocacy of one.
the entire POINT of the "neo" in neoliberal is to distinguish from classical liberals, i.e. "we believe in redistribution and interventions to address market failures".
Right. Neoliberalism wasn’t the problem, it was that we let the growth of wealth that resulted from it primarily benefit the top. Neoliberalism should still be the goal, but it should benefit more people in the process.
The point of free markets with minimal interference is to actually use the market to help us solve problems. In this case the “problem” that emerged with global markets is that they introduced a billion lower skilled workers into the system. This reduced demand relative to skilled labor and entrepreneurial talent and capital. Thus the market did its magic and incentivized skill, ideas and capital. Thus we get the greatest enrichment of people ever, with a side effect being increased inequality and dynamism within developed nations (where skills and capital are housed). The market in effect was telling all of us to invest and get educated.
Markets, which neoliberalism values, are complex adaptive problem solving systems.
If you want markets that divy up the goods according to your biases, you don’t really want markets at all. All you get is broken markets.
The current fetish over “equality” (of outcome) is in my opinion one of the greatest framing errors of our era.(Not to be confused with equality of process, ie basic fairness).
Excellent article. Those who disagree should read some material written by free-market economists. I recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell as an introductory book.
I got four likes, which indicates that at least four people disagree with you. Instead of giving some reason to believe my comment is stupid and unhelpful, you insult me. Your comment is an example of what you accuse me of. You might find it helpful to study reasoning and critical thinking.
Your last comment indicates that you're invincibly ignorant. I take back what I said. I believe a course in reasoning and critical thinking would be wasted on you, since I doubt that you're persuadable. Consequently, I'll waste no more of my time on you. Go back to your Xbox, and don't expect any more replies to your comments.
I did not intend to ever respond to you again, but I can't let this final insult pass. You did not make it clear that you don't care what I think. If you didn't care what I think, you wouldn't have replied to any of my comments. But you replied three times. Therefore, you cared what I think. In denying the obvious, you have shown yourself to be an inept liar. Without evidence, you accuse me of being a moron. Studies show that college graduates have a higher IQ than the average person. I graduated summa cum laude—i.e., in the top 1% of my class. I won awards every year for being the top student in my department, and I set several academic records. I completed seven logic courses. In only one of those courses did any student outperform me. In that course, I piled up so much credit that I learned I could skip the final exam and settle for my only A-, which is what I did. I assume some other student got an A, but perhaps not, because I received the only A in several courses I took. Because of my academic record, I was offered a teaching position at the university upon graduation, even though I had only a BA. When you initially stated that my first comment was unhelpful, you were qualified to speak for yourself but not for the others who responded favorably. Instead of addressing the fact that others disagreed with you, you insulted me again in your next comment. Furthermore, you've consistently made assertions unsupported by anything more than a non sequitur. Those are marks of ignorance, lack of intelligence, and irrationality. Given the evidence, it's extremely unlikely that you're as knowledgeable, intelligent, or rational as I am. You are the one who insulted me first. I'm guilty of no more than giving you a dose of your own medicine. In short, the evidence you've provided indicates that you're ignorant, unintelligent, irrational, dishonest, and ill-mannered. This will be my last reply to any of your churlish comments.
You present me with a problem: I can't adequately address all your claims in the time I have available. One reason is that you make many assertions without offering much, if anything, in the way of supporting evidence or arguments. It's much easier to express a single statement than it is to adequately support it or disprove it. To illustrate my point, consider this: Suppose I were to write 100 false sentences, each making a different claim. You could write one sentence declaring that all my statements are false, or 100 sentences, each of which negates one of my sentences. But you couldn't present convincing arguments refuting each of my sentences without writing many times as many sentences as I wrote. So please forgive me if I don't respond to everything.
Classical free market economists indeed assume that individuals act rationally and in self-interest to maximize utility, as consumers, or profits, as producers. That is, using available information, they tend to choose efficient means to achieve their desired ends. Consequently, the behavior of economic actors as a group results in market efficiency. However, the empirical research of behavioral economists shows that individual behavior isn't always rational. People sometimes act impulsively, misjudge probabilities, or misevaluate outcomes. But even if actors err, the market provides feedback that eventually guides correction. Austrian School economists argue that markets coordinate dispersed knowledge efficiently through price signals, which doesn't require the perfect rationality of each market participant. The freedom to act on private information permits the market to self-correct errors, making aggregate outcomes rational even if individual actors are not entirely rational.
You ask whether the following is intuitively logical: The free market dissolves everything that isn't associated with the free market exchange. That appears to be a Marxist critique of the free market. If I understand correctly, the idea is that things that don't have cash value, such as friendships, social norms, traditions, and cultural practices, are treated as if they're market commodities having exchange value. I live in a country that has a relatively free market, though it's not nearly as free as when I was young. It seems to me that, if anything, commodification has increased as the market has become less free. People seem to be less kind and more inclined to exploit each other, especially if they can do so indirectly through government action. In any case, I think most people are disinclined to confuse market values with moral values, social values, cultural values, family values, aesthetic values, spiritual values, intellectual values, physical values, emotional values, etc. The basic alternative to a free market is a command economy, in which a relative few people exert control over many. In effect, the few treat the many as their slaves, who are regarded as commodities. That is, since property is a bundle of rights, including the right to control what is owned, given that A and B are two persons, if A claims a right to control B, then A at least presupposes that B is A's slave.
You seem to say that free markets destroy industries, displace employees, some of whose skills are no longer in demand, and send those industries overseas. That seems to be the case, but the consequences don't appear to be as bad as you suggest. For what it's worth, the relatively poorer people overseas become financially better off. The manufacturing industries in the wealthier countries tend to be replaced by service industries that offer lower incomes but better working conditions. The lower incomes are to some degree offset by cheaper goods becoming available from overseas and by per capita incomes tending to increase over time. Joseph Schumpeter called the process in which new innovations replace and make obsolete older innovations “creative destruction.” That process results in the loss of obsolete jobs. For instance, the invention of automobiles led to the loss of jobs in the horse-based transportation system, such as blacksmiths, carriage makers, and stable hands. Power looms, which made clothing more available and cheaper, cost weavers and spinners their jobs. Many others, such as elevator operators, video store clerks, and milkmen, lost jobs due to innovations. Without the process of creative destruction, we'd still be living in relatively primitive societies without modern conveniences. Despite that process, the unemployment rate doesn't seem to increase, per capita income keeps rising, and average people can enjoy better lifestyles than ancient royalty.
You complain about the behavior of bureaucrats, but they're government actors, not free market actors.
You say the free market fosters mass migration. That's true because most people realize they're better off living in a free society than in the society they fled. The US is a nation of immigrants. But that seems to be something to be said in favor of a free market instead of something against it. Economist Bryan Caplan presents strong evidence that, on balance, free immigration benefits both the immigrants and the residents of a country.
You seem to blame the free market for the fentanyl “epidemic,” as if it's a disease instead of a choice. An authoritarian society could not necessarily prevent its subjects from getting fentanyl. Drugs are readily available in American prisons. The widespread use of fentanyl can be better blamed on the drug laws, which would not exist in a purely free market. There was no widespread use of recreational drugs in the US before the drug laws were passed. Making drugs illegal tends to raise their prices and profits, to put production and distribution into the hands of unsavory characters who are willing to commit crimes and to try to addict as many potential customers as possible, and to encourage replacing relatively mild drugs with more powerful and dangerous drugs.
According to what I've read, China can produce small and medium-sized vessels at roughly the multiple of US production you claim. However, US production of strategic vessels, such as carriers and nuclear submarines, is superior to China's. The main reason China can produce more small vessels is that they have many more active shipyards. Since our economy is larger than China's, presumably, we could outproduce them if we chose to do so. But we have by far the most powerful military in the world, so there doesn't seem to be any good reason to make that choice. Bear in mind that military spending costs taxpayers money they'd rather spend on themselves.
You say China has a monopoly on rare earth metals. Although China produces about 70% of global rare earth metals, they have only about 35% of rare earth reserves. Several other countries have major deposits. For instance, Brazil has the world's second-largest reserves of rare earth metals. What proportion of natural resources any country possesses wouldn't be a problem if all nations in the world had free markets, in which case there would be free trade. The dominant rare earth metals position of China is no problem unless the Chinese government decides not to export them, which would reduce their income. If that should happen, the US and other nations would have to get rare earth metals elsewhere, which would probably raise their price due to a decrease in the available supply.
You say liberals claim differences between cultures, genders, ethnicities, religions, and countries are a matter of preference, but you don't offer any evidence to show they're mistaken or that, even if they are, their opinions are harmful. Some of those may be a matter of preference. If they're mistaken, and that's a problem, there doesn't seem to be a political solution. You're much more likely to change minds by means of persuasion than by passing laws.
You say you favor an unapologetic majoritarian state representing the masses. To me, that sounds like either shameless unrestrained mob rule or, more likely in practice, a remorseless dictatorship that allegedly imposes the will of the majority on the population. An example of the former is the French Revolution. Examples of the latter are Nazi Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty. In either case, there would be no protection of individual rights, i.e., no justice as I understand it. It's more likely you'd be a member of the hapless masses than the ultimate ruler. Are you sure that's what you want?
You say “freedom” means different things to different people. To me, it means the absence of compulsion or restraint of one person by another. By that definition, a person living alone on an island would be completely free. I distinguish between freedom and liberty. If someone aggresses against you with the evident intent to harm you and you restrain him from doing so, you deprive him of freedom but not of liberty. He is not at liberty (justly permitted) to aggress against you. Thus, “freedom” is a more general term than “liberty.” It's divisible into liberty and license. It's divided by the concept of justice. Thus, liberty is just freedom; license is unjust freedom. By this definition, I'm not an advocate of economic freedom but of economic liberty (as well as non-economic liberty).
Although I favor a society in which all people are free to live their lives in any way they choose as long as they don't violate the rights to life, liberty, and property of others, I realize that many people (such as yourself, I presume) have different preferences. So, I advocate the following: Take any person in the world, yourself, for instance. Whatever sort of society you want to live in, that's exactly the sort of society I want you to live in. I want you to have what you want. But I want that not only for you, but for everyone. In that case, the world would consist of a diversity of societies, one to suit every taste. I think there should be mutual agreement on a few rules, such as that no society will aggress against any other society and that every individual retains the right to exit any society with which he becomes disenchanted. In the long run, I think people would tend to gravitate to societies most people find most satisfactory. What I advocate is similar to panarchy.
I can't spare the time to continue this correspondence. I believe there are sources where you can find replies to all your objections, but you may not find them all satisfactory.
I downloaded the paper you recommended and glanced through it. It seems to identify a genuine problem, but I haven't had time to study and analyze it. Arguably, “stickiness of endowments” reduces market efficiency and leads to deadweight losses. The problem may be difficult to correct without intervention.
However, the tone of your comment suggests that you're greatly concerned about more than market efficiency, which I suspect is China's possible military threat. If so, I'm a bit less concerned than you are that China will become a military threat to the world for the following reasons.
First, to be a significant threat to the world, a nation must be both sufficiently wealthy to become a military superpower and to be militarily aggressive. Currently, China doesn't seem to quite satisfy the second requirement. Though the Chinese have been expanding and modernizing their military, they appear to be interested in conquering only territory whose residents are predominantly ethnic Chinese, such as Taiwan. Otherwise, they seem to just be trying to achieve global influence rivaling that of the US.
Second, I doubt that their economic policies will continue to grow their economy at the rate it grew in the recent past for the following reasons. Before 1978, the Chinese economy's annual rate of GDP growth was about 2-3%. The economy started to grow rapidly in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping implemented economic reforms that transformed China's centrally planned economy into a comparatively free market economy. However, in about 1988, the government imposed price controls in response to inflation, thus partially returning to central planning, and that trend has continued since then, especially under Xi Jinping since 2013. From 1978 to 1988, the annual rate of growth averaged about 10.2%. However, since 1988, the average rate of growth has been about 8.8%. Indeed, since 2020, it's been about 5-6%. Admittedly, that's considerably higher than the US economy's rate of growth during the same period. However, it's said that a developing economy, such as China's, can potentially grow faster than a developed economy, such as America's. Recall that the Japanese economy grew rapidly after WW II, and during the 1980s, many thought it would soon surpass the US economy. Currently, Japan's economy is about one-seventh the size of the US economy.
It's refreshing to read a criticism from someone who is both respectful and somewhat reasonable. I had previously regretted posting my comment because it resulted in my feeling obliged to spend my valuable time replying to the insults of a churlish dolt. Your spelling indicates that you're British, whereas I'm American. So, we have different cultural and educational backgrounds. It's difficult to reply to your criticisms because you seem to tend to speak in metaphors and vague generalities that I have trouble translating into literal, clear, and specific propositions. Besides, you frequently fail to offer reasons to believe your claims are true and why one should care. For instance, what does it mean to say, “Free market economics results in all that's solid melting into air”, what reason is there to believe that's true, and so what if it is? I have no idea what sort of reply I could give that would address that issue.
I can reply to some of your sentences that I think I understand. For instance, you seem to suggest that you're an integralist. I understand political integralism to be the position that Catholicism should be the basis of laws and policies within society. If that's not what you advocate, you'll have to explain what you mean by that term. I suppose integralism can be established in Europe, but the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or showing a preference for any religion.
You seem to at least imply that the natural endpoint of classical liberalism is progressivism. If you're claiming that classical liberalism transitioned into progressivism during US history, I agree. The process began in the 1890s with the emergence of progressivism and accelerated with the onset of the Great Depression. By the 1970s, the transition was nearly complete.
However, if you're claiming that classical liberalism logically leads to progressivism, I disagree. Classical liberalism, the ideology of America's Founders, was primarily derived from John Locke's “Two Treatises of Government” and Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations.” The two main divisions between political ideologies are between (1) authoritarianism and libertarianism, and (2) collectivism and individualism. The two pure ideologies in (1) and in (2) are inconsistent with each other. Most common ideologies contain an inconsistent mix of all four pure ideologies. The most extreme forms of authoritarianism and libertarianism are totalitarianism and anarchism, respectively. The most economically extreme forms of collectivism and individualism are communism and free market “capitalism,” respectively. I put “capitalism” in quotations because it's a misnomer created by socialists, as I'll explain subsequently. In his “First Treatise,” John Locke refuted Robert Filmer's divine right of kings expressed in “Patriarcha.” Filmer's position was based on the fundamental principle of authoritarianism: the ruling authority owns the entire territory he rules, including all his human subjects, who are, therefore, his slaves. In Chapter Five of his “Second Treatise,” Locke proposed the basic principle of libertarianism: every person is a self-owner. From that principle of liberty, he derives the rights to life, liberty, and property, and his principle of justice, which opposes violating any of those rights. Locke's influence can be seen in the second paragraph of America's Declaration of Independence. Adam Smith advocated a free market economy, which, as I stated above, is a form of economic individualism. Thus, America's Founders accepted classical liberalism, which is a moderate version of individualist libertarianism. Progressives advocate increasing the power of the ruling authority at the expense of those who are ruled and transitioning the economy to socialism. So, progressivism tends toward authoritarian collectivism, the opposite of libertarian individualism. Hence, classical liberalism and progressivism are mutually inconsistent. One can't logically lead to the other.
The Nolan Chart displays the five main US political ideologies: liberalism/progressivism, conservatism, authoritarianism, (individualist) libertarianism, and centrism. You seem to suggest that individualist libertarianism is inconsistent. But you present no proof that that's the case. I've constructed a complex argument that demonstrates that all positions on the Nolan Chart except for pure libertarianism are internally inconsistent. All except pure libertarianism and pure totalitarianism are inconsistent mixtures of the pure ideologies I mentioned above. Surprisingly, even pure totalitarianism is inconsistent, because what behavior one totalitarian prohibits another might require, and a given totalitarian might later arbitrarily require what he had previously prohibited. In contrast, two pure libertarians who made no factual or logical errors would always agree with each other. That's because pure libertarianism is logically consistent, since it follows from mutually consistent principles. My argument is far too long to present more details here.
“Capitalism” is a socialist term that free market advocates are now stuck with. Supposedly, capitalists get the lion's share of wealth created in a free market economy. Many years ago. I did an economic analysis using data from a comprehensive equities research service that had this result: If you subtract all business expenses of the average corporation except payroll costs from gross sales and call the remainder “profits,” employees receive 85% of the profits, and stockholders get only 15% and take virtually all the risk of loss. So, capitalism had better be called “employee-ism” or “labor-ism.” However, as Thomas Sowell points out, there is a still better name: “consumerism.” In a free market economy, the consumer is king. The only legal way producers can consistently make profits in a free market economy is by producing relatively high-quality goods and services at relatively low cost—i.e., relative to potential competitors. Economics can be defined as the science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth (goods and services). Notice that consumption, at the end of the series, is the aim of production and distribution. That is, the purpose of an economic system is to provide wealth to consumers. Every living thing is a consumer. We all must consume to survive. The free market has been demonstrated repeatedly to maximize wealth. Perhaps you've seen the “hockey stick” graph that shows how wealth increased exponentially with the introduction of economic freedom, or the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index, which shows a positive correlation between the wealth of nations and economic freedom.
You seem to say that free market economics leads to worsening demographics, the destruction of long-term economic health, and the collapse of civilization and culture, but you give no reason to believe that's true. Absent such a reason, I have no more reason to accept the claim as true than to reject it as false. Indeed, since relatively free markets have existed for perhaps 250 years and what you predict hasn't seemed to come to pass, it appears more likely that your claim is false.
Most of your other objections to the free market are insufficiently clear and precise for me to understand. I can only guess your meaning. For instance, I guess you think free market economists regard economic freedom as almost all that's worth having. If so, I don't know where you get that idea. I've been reading material on economics for about 50 years, and I don't recall any free-market economist taking that position. To the contrary, in a truly free society, which includes a free market, groups of people can form whatever social or cultural arrangements to which they mutually consent. The US isn't completely free, but even here, one can establish communes and worker-owned businesses, which is what many collectivists seem to want, as well as various types of social organizations. Although a libertarian society is necessarily anti-authoritarian, it can accommodate both individualism and collectivism. The wealth created in a free market has lifted people from grinding poverty and freed up their time to pursue other activities besides trying to scratch out a bare subsistence.
I may not be able to reply to other comments because I'm working on several projects that require my time. If you're willing to read an economic and a moral defense of capitalism, I recommend “The Capitalist Manifesto” by Johan Norberg and “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, respectively. Also, I've seen excellent reviews of “In Defense of Capitalism: Debunking the Myths” by Rainer Zitelmann, which I haven't read yet.
I was just reading something of his yesterday on Substack and thinking to myself how he has progressed to one of the more open minded and interesting authors out there.
I have long considered myself a neoliberal...but a neoliberal with a heart. I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.
Neoliberalism gets a bad rap because of the way its purists proponents demand that it be practiced, and the way the purest possible practices of it inevitably lead to corruption and government capture by the wealthy.
Notice I said "purest possible practices", not "pure practice". I say it this way because it points to the huge hole in libertarian thinking on neoliberalism that opponents of neoliberalism feel in their guts even if they rarely articulate it well. Simply, people are lazy and greedy and if they can they will do what they can to rig the game to their advantage. Sure if neoliberalism could be practiced in its pure form it would work great, but pure practice is impossible. Even getting kinda sorta close is impossible.
Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful, and deludes itself into believing that a small government can act as an incorruptible referee that would allow "the invisible hand" to work its magic. What in the history of mankind supports this delusion? It's an astonishingly naive faith based notion.
The wealthy have never been restrained by markets. Throughout history, at every turn, they have rigged the markets and given the invisible hand the middle finger. Nothing in orthodox neoliberal philosophy can restrain the powerful and prevent them from rentseeking and government capture. But neoliberalism can’t work if the powerful can rig the game. The only way to save neoliberalism is to go outside of it.
The only thing that has ever blunted the ability of the wealthy and powerful to rig the game in their favor is giving significant governmental power to workers and consumers. While everyday people aren’t going to act as intentional agents of the markets, they will, like the wealthy, try and rig the game in their favor, the mutual restraining of the two agents corrupting influences acts as an effective limiting force on both. Not in any perfect or ideal way. No. It’s a crazy incoherent messy way. But it’s a very human way. And it works as long as neither side gets too much of an advantage. History shows us that maintaining balance is difficult, and that at times we will fail to do so. But governments not markets are the only things that have had any success at it. It’s not the size of the government that matters, It’s how well it maintains that balance.
Parallel to the neoliberal revolution, that shrank the world, broke down cultural barriers, increased humanity’s tolerance for our differences, increased our appreciation for the cultures of others, enriched the globe and lifted billions out of poverty, we here in the US had a neoliberal revolution in our laws and government.
At the same time barriers were being broken down to let wealth flow freely to reshape the world, here in the US our laws were changed to let wealth flow freely to reshape our politics.
The tax burden on the wealthy was decreased, contributing to an historic wealth gap. Right to work laws and other government roadblocks gutted unions. “Citizens United” is based on a neoliberal outlook. Law after law that were barriers to the super wealthy were struck down and replaced with laws that granted them rights to transform their disproportionate wealth into disproportionate political power.
It is the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our laws that have brought our democracy to near collapse and our government captured by a segment of wealthy interests who have successfully found favor with our corrupt president. It’s the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our rule of law by our Supreme Court that allows him to do it.
It’s the right wing fatih in,and applied dogma of neoliberalism that has brought our economy to a state that is profoundly anti neoliberal.
After all that I imagine people saying… “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!” I call myself a neoliberal because I believe, no, I know, that within a framework, it works. It works great. I believe that markets are the best and most efficient ways to allocate and distribute wealth. Where I differ from orthodox neoliberals is I reject their utopian, ridiculous faith in markets being self regulating.
I said…”I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.”
For example, I think we should force people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational, like housing, healthcare, retirement and education. Citizens who can't afford to meet that minimum amount would have their investments subsidized by the government to bring them up to that minimum level. The return on those investments will be guaranteed by the government.
All of what I advocate above is the kinda thing I mean by making allowances for human weakness. It’s ridiculously opposed to neoliberal orthodoxy. It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government. It transfers wealth down the ladder. It empowers the average joe, despite himself.
It’s exactly what neoliberal darling Singapore does. Neoliberalism can have a heart. It can be realistic about human weakness and make accommodation for them instead of defaulting to social darwinism.
Not only can Neoliberalism have a heart, it works best when it has one, and dies when it doesn’t.
> Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful
utter nonsense. the "neo" distinguishes it from classical liberalism, and entails that it supports addressing market failures (negative externalities, monopolies, etc.) as well as supporting redistribution (ideally with minimal deadweight loss).
William Ellis states: "I have long considered myself a neoliberal........but a neoliberal with a heart."......and........"For example, I think we should FORCE people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational..........It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government.
It transfers wealth down the ladder.....[ but probably into an "official's BANK ACCOUNT" ]
It empowers the average joe, despite himself.........“ That's "Even getting kinda sorta close " to a Mafia neoliberal .........with a gun ! [ If you are going to enforce it ! ]
He also states : “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!”
Finally !............ At last I can agree with you !!!
William Ellis : Re: Singapore......"you think they practice Mafia neoliberalism."
To quote your previous article : "Even getting kinda sorta close " ...... YES !
'Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for free-market capitalism with minimal government intervention. It emphasizes policies such as privatization, deregulation, free trade, and reduced government spending, with the belief that these measures promote economic growth and individual freedom.' HOWEVER , Singapore has a VERY INTERVENTIONIST GOVERNMENT !
'Singapore is widely recognized for having a highly interventionist government policy, characterized by strong state guidance in economic development, urban planning, and other areas. This approach involves the government actively using policies like financial incentives, industrial planning, and regulations to steer the economy and achieve national goals, though it has evolved over time to include more market-oriented strategies and public-private partnerships.'
AND....YES....IT HAS BEEN HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL if you only use monetary values !
Rule of law is STRICT and SEVERE [ .....and I really wish "OUR" legal system actually punished the law-breakers instead of "understanding the situation of the poor miscreant" and compounding the crime and further punishing the victim !!!!] and FREEDOM only exists in a very narrow margin within those laws . Everything else is STATE CONTROLLED ! It is still a wonderful safe place for a tourist to visit !!!
Got to agree with Clay here (though I greatly admire Freddie as a writer). We have been on an extended journey to abandon what worked, and now we are getting populist idiocracy.
I don't think your point is necessarily incompatible with Freddie’s. If a system that produces so much material abundance nevertheless becomes so hated that a large chunk of citizens come to demand it's abandonment, than it seems that the designers of that system have overlooked something essential for producing stable societies.
well, no. the design of an economic system is orthogonal to making the public informed. an uninformed public can have irrational hysterical populist reactions to _any_ economic system.
the solution here is something like approval voting or even election by jury.
If your thesis hinges on the idea that people today are especially uninformed today, I've got really bad news for you, because there's little to no conclusive evidence for that premise.
If it's about mistrust in system, because it feels unresponsive to democratic demands or a public worry that it's steered by a technocratic elite, then you're on the right track.
tell me you didn't read the manifesto without telling me you didn't read the manifesto. the evidence is absolutely massive and overwhelming. people are voting on economic policy and don't know the difference between basic economic terminology and their left foot. try getting the average voter to define:
- tax incidence
- deadweight loss
- pareto improvement
- the difference between demand pull and cost push inflation
- the deaths per terawatt hour of nuclear vs other forms of energy
Neoliberalism has improved more lives, faster, than any economic system in the history of the human race. It has substantially increased the global supply of lower skilled labor, leading to lower wage gains for poorly educated people in the West, even as it increases demand for capital and skill. This creates the inequality of outcomes that has been illegitimately used to criticize the program.
I am saying that global markets brought in over a billion lower skilled workers. The increased supply relative to capital and skilled labor drove down the price of labor and drove up the returns to skills, entrepreneurial talent and capital.
The net result was a billion people lifted out of poverty, but creating higher inequality (which is a GOOD THING) in developed nations.
I'd say the inequality is a bad thing. Even if it lifted everyone out of poverty. It just creates resentment that has partially led to the issues we're facing now
1) immigration has been a colossal failure. Anyone who read the bell curve could tell it would be, but “neoliberalism” values short term profits to private stakeholders, and isn’t shy about taking it from public coffers
2) all of the surplus created got dumped into eds, meds, and housing. You can rail that these sectors “aren’t free market”, but I don’t see a lot of neoliberals doing anything to make them more free market.
Populists got school vouchers passed in the sunbelt largely as a revolt against elites but that’s it.
In general you should think of “neoliberalism” as “free markets for you, government subsidies and protections for me.”
3) I’m not defending the Chinese model, but did anyone expect that to be as rich as countries that had a forty year head start on them? Moreover, the East Asian net export model simply can’t scale up to china’s population. There isn’t a market to dump all these goods in.
And there is little point comparing an entire nation to some finance/trade hub city state.
4) falling birth rates are largely due to the fact that children are a cost for the first twenty years of life and that’s just beyond neoliberalisms incentive timeframe.
5) neoliberals seem to bail themselves out at the public trough when things go wrong for them
I doubt any western system of economic practice, neoliberalism included, has much of any impact, but is mearly coincident with other factors. My very crude unacademic take is that starting in the 80s we had (1) the computer revolution, (2) the Internet revolution, and 3) full globalization of trade. These each successively drove inovation and productivity. But now, in the lull, we are waiting and hoping for the next big thing.
You're right, and so I'll concede it's not a strong argument for my thesis; that human advancement largely happens for other reasons than good government policy. Though I give more credit to the human capitalist efforts that created the result, than the neoliberal policies that removed the roadblocks to global trade
The Optimism Effect is a phenomenon that shows optimism, particularly producer optimism, directly influences investment, innovation, and productivity, thereby driving economic growth.
I wonder if the success of neoliberalism could even be one of the causes of political polarization. In a materially deprived world, each citizen has a strong incentive to improve the national economy in order to drive growth. In a materially abundant world, most people have what they need, and politics becomes more of a hobby or niche interest. Politics junkies are sort of like movie junkies or video game junkies: it's something to do with your free time. The problem is that those who spend their free time thinking about politics are disproportionately those with the most extreme views.
Everyone hates neoliberalism because in the process of creating "economic growth" it failed in every way that actually matters to the majority of the population.
Sure, we have infinite financial growth, but we also have:
-Wage stagnation
-Crippling medical debt
-Staggeringly high rent and housing prices
-Climate collapse and pollution
-Ridiculously expensive, unhealthy food
And so on.
What does economic growth actually mean? It means the amount of monetary the system produces is going up. That's all. It says nothing about how that money is spent or how it's distributed within that country. Which means, from the average person's perspective, it is *absolutely meaningless.*
Neoliberalism "works" in that it makes an abstract number go up better than any other system so far. But in every way that matters to the average person on the street, or anyone who cares about the standard of living of the general public, it's an abject failure. We have a greater level of wealth inequality in the United States than the French did right before the French Revolution. Billionaires write policy and give speeches about how AI will bring us the future while the general public wonders how they're going to afford food.
People aren't turning against neoliberalism because it didn't do what it set out to do. They're turning against it did exactly that, and ruined their lives in the process.
Wages stagnated most in developed countries that were least neoliberal, and increased the most in those that were and are more neoliberal. Compare the US to Europe.
Medical is the absolute antithesis of neoliberalism. This actually contradicts your point.
Housing unaffordability is again a problem in exactly those places that were least neoliberal. Again, your example contradicts you.
Climate “collapse”? WTF. What part of the climate collapsed? Pollution and carbon emissions per capita dropped most in the most neoliberal economies.
Food? This has gone down in inflation adjusted terms. A lot, now being pretty much an insignificant cost to most families compared to every single prior era since the advent of agriculture 10k years ago.
There thing HOWEVER
Neoliberalism is literally anything I hate that why he blame it's basically every social flaw
I point out that root of housing crisis is fact root on outdated zoning laws
What does "medical is the antithesis of neoliberal" even mean? And all of these are problems in the United States, labeled here as the most neoliberal.
As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."
That the medical industry (followed by housing) is the least neoliberal industry and the most screwed up. Both are poster children for run-amok absurd regulation, price interference, subsidized demand and general disdain for open markets.
I will agree that economic growth (especially in Asia) has contributed to global warming. It is also the solution longer term.
i just need to...subsidize demand.
The medical industry is, if anything, heavily under-regulated. You know what you get when a corner of the medical sector is allowed to self regulate? Martin Skreli. Look it up.
"Least neoliberal and most screwed up" - This is backwards. Healthcare and housing are screwed up precisely because they're the most regulated, not least.
Healthcare Regulation Reality Check
The US healthcare system is a regulatory nightmare, not a free market:
Certificate of Need laws block new hospitals from opening without government permission
Scope of practice laws prevent nurse practitioners and physician assistants from providing care they're trained for
Licensing restrictions create artificial doctor shortages (we could train more, but AMA-backed limits keep supply tight)
FDA approval takes 10+ years and costs billions, blocking cheaper alternatives
Insurance mandates require coverage for services people don't need, inflating premiums
Tax policy ties insurance to employment (accident of WWII wage controls), destroying individual market
EMTALA requires expensive ER care for non-emergencies with no payment mechanism
Prescription requirements force doctor visits for routine medications available over-the-counter globally
The one deregulated corner of healthcare? Cosmetic surgery, LASIK, and cash-pay clinics. Guess what happened there? Prices dropped 30-50% while quality skyrocketed. LASIK went from $2,200/eye (1998) to $600/eye today—while getting safer and more effective.
Housing Is the Same Story
"Run-amok regulation" is literally the problem:
Zoning laws make 75%+ of urban land illegal to build apartments on
Environmental reviews add 2-7 years and millions in costs
Building codes mandate expensive features beyond safety
Parking minimums require 1-2 spaces per unit (adding $50k-150k per unit)
Height restrictions prevent density where people want to live
Rent control (where it exists) destroys new construction incentives
Tokyo builds more housing annually than all of California—because they deregulated zoning in the 1990s. Result? Stable/falling rents despite population growth.
"Subsidized Demand"
You're completely right here. Subsidizing demand without increasing supply just inflates prices:
Healthcare: Medicare/Medicaid/ACA subsidies increase demand while supply stays restricted → prices explode
Housing: Mortgage interest deduction, FHA loans, low down-payment programs → more buyers chasing same supply → prices explode
Education: Federal student loans → unlimited demand for college → tuition up 1,200% since 1980
This is Econ 101. Subsidize demand + restrict supply = price explosion.
The Martin Shkreli Red Herring
Shkreli is a perfect example of regulatory failure, not free markets:
He bought rights to Daraprim, a 60-year-old drug
Raised price from $13.50 to $750/pill
Why could he do this? FDA makes generic approval so expensive and slow that no competitor bothered entering
In a free market, generic competitors would flood in within months at the old price
The FDA's regulatory moat protected his monopoly
Countries with looser drug approval have cheaper medications—because competition actually works when allowed.
Bottom line: Calling healthcare and housing "neoliberal" when they're regulatory capture case studies is like calling North Korea a free market because the Kim family is rich. The problems aren't from too much freedom—they're from government-enforced cartels and artificial scarcity.
Great comment!
bro, you really need to look at some data.
https://newsletter.humanprogress.org/p/the-system-everyone-hates-is-the/comment/170100970
"As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."" Thanks for YOUR opinion "sparky"!
Climate change is cyclical , natural and fairly mild. The warming that occurred to "defrost" the world started some 12,000 years ago ! "The current interglacial period, known as the Holocene epoch, started at 2.00 PM on a Tuesday in March approximately 11,700 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. It marked the beginning of a warmer climate that has lasted to the present day, which is why it's considered the current warmer stage within the larger Quaternary ice age."
The increased CO2 level has , perhaps , provided some increased warming , but it has resuscitated and sustained plant growth and , in a sense , enabled all the oxygen and the food production , and thereby enabled ALL the present civilisations to occur . Far from "reducing this planet to a cinder" , this current interglacial is rather cool by comparison with previous interglacials ! "A new study predicts the next ice-age should be about 10,000 years away. But the researchers say record rates of fossil fuel burning that are increasing global temperatures will likely delay this due date." [ Which should also state : " Since none of us will be here to witness it , and those that are will soon die out , our guess is approximately as good as yours !"...just like those "Climate Models" !?? ].
Now......should the burning of "stored sunlight" [ carbonaceous fuels] actually extend this current interglacial period that HAS TO BE A GOOD THING surely !
It will allow "our" descendants the opportunity to enjoy the experience of LIVING
much as "we" have , for a little longer ! Unless they can develop an effective means of survival BENEATH THE ICE-SHEETS , growing plants for food and for oxygen , for about 100,000 years then there will be very few survivors to take advantage of the NEXT warm interglacial.......should there even be one !
So....perhaps YOU should give that some thought next time before you complain !
Oh ! And just to satisfy my curiosity , what particular DISASTER or ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE can you name , specifically attributable to the current CLIMATE CHANGE , bearing in mind that "good old Mother Nature " has already managed to kill off 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS that have ever existed on this planet WITHOUT any help from HUMANS ????
And NO ! Storms , tornadoes , floods , fires , earthquakes , tsunamis , volcanic eruptions , mud-slides , droughts , etc are NOT increasing ........they are occurring LESS frequently .......and due to modern mitigation........are claiming fewer lives every year.....a decrease of 'disaster deaths ' of about 98% over the last 100 years !
This decline is not because there are fewer disasters, but because of a greater ability to prevent, manage, and recover from them through improved early warning systems, better infrastructure, and more effective disaster management.
Well done "the human race" !!!
You are brutally clueless. This is a masterclass in climate denial talking points. Let me systematically dismantle it:
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL AND CYCLICAL"
Yes, climate has changed naturally in the past. That's irrelevant. Murder happened before humans existed too—that doesn't mean we can't cause it now.
The current warming is:
• 100x faster than natural post-glacial warming
• Occurring while orbital cycles predict we should be cooling slightly
• Perfectly correlated with CO2 emissions in timing, isotopic signature, and geographic pattern
• Matches physics predictions from the 1890s (Arrhenius calculated CO2 warming before we had good temperature records)
The "it's natural" argument is like claiming a house fire is natural because the sun exists.
"CO2 IS PLANT FOOD / GOOD FOR LIFE"
This is like saying "water is necessary for life, therefore flooding your house is good."
Yes, plants need CO2. But:
• Optimal ≠ Unlimited: Plants also need water—too much drowns them
• Speed matters: Ecosystems adapted to specific conditions over millennia can't adapt in decades
• Other factors limit growth: Most agriculture is limited by water, nutrients, or land—not CO2
• Ocean acidification: Extra CO2 dissolves in oceans, threatening coral reefs and shellfish (30% more acidic since pre-industrial)
The net effect of climate change on agriculture is negative once you factor in droughts, floods, heat stress, and pest ranges shifting.
"PREVIOUS INTERGLACIALS WERE WARMER"
Spectacularly missing the point. Yes, Earth has been warmer—and civilization didn't exist then.
• Human agriculture began ~10,000 years ago during stable Holocene climate
• All cities, infrastructure, and supply chains are built for current climate
• 8 billion people depend on stable weather patterns for food/water
• Sea levels 20+ feet higher would displace billions and destroy trillions in infrastructure
"Earth will survive" ≠ "human civilization will be fine." Earth survived the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs too.
"EXTENDING THE INTERGLACIAL IS GOOD"
You're confusing preventing an ice age 10,000+ years from now with overheating the planet in the next century.
• The next ice age is tens of thousands of years away—irrelevant to anyone alive today or their great-great-grandchildren
• We're warming far past optimal interglacial temperatures
• By 2100, we're headed toward temperatures not seen in 3+ million years (when sea levels were 50+ feet higher)
This is like saying "freezing to death is bad, so let's light ourselves on fire."
"DISASTERS ARE DECREASING"
Deaths are decreasing due to wealth, technology, and early warning systems. Disaster frequency and intensity are measurably increasing:
• Heat waves: Record-breaking temperatures now 5x more frequent than 1950s
• Extreme rainfall events: Increased 20%+ in many regions
• Droughts: Longer and more severe in many areas
• Hurricanes: Rapid intensification events increasing, wetter storms (Harvey, Ida)
• Wildfires: Western US fire season extended by 2+ months, area burned up dramatically
• Crop failures: Multi-breadbasket failures increasingly correlated
Economic losses from climate disasters are skyrocketing even as deaths decline. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk markets (Florida, California) because payouts are exploding.
"NAME A SPECIFIC DISASTER"
Here are disasters with clear climate change attribution:
• 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome: Killed 1,400+ people, temperatures made 150x more likely by climate change
• 2010 Russian heat wave: 55,000 deaths, climate models show it wouldn't have occurred without warming
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching: 50%+ of corals dead from ocean warming (1.5°C increase)
• Arctic sea ice loss: Down 40% since 1979, disrupting ecosystems and indigenous communities
• Permafrost thaw: Releasing methane, destabilizing infrastructure across the Arctic
• Glacier loss: Threatening water supplies for billions (Himalayas, Andes)
The science of "attribution studies" can now calculate exactly how much climate change increased the probability/severity of specific events.
"MOTHER NATURE KILLED 99.9% OF SPECIES"
Holy false equivalence. Yes, extinction is natural. That doesn't mean:
• We should accelerate it 100-1,000x above background rates
• Losing biodiversity won't harm humans (ecosystem services = food, water, air quality)
• Mass extinctions are "fine" (they're catastrophic, recovery takes millions of years)
We're currently in the Sixth Mass Extinction, driven by humans. Previous mass extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts and massive volcanism—and they were disasters, not "natural so therefore okay."
THE CORE DECEPTION
This entire argument conflates:
1. "Climate has changed naturally" with "therefore this change is natural"
2. "Earth will survive" with "human civilization will be fine"
3. "Some warming might be okay" with "unlimited warming is good"
4. "Disaster deaths declining" with "disasters not worsening"
It's intellectual whack-a-mole using half-truths to deny overwhelming scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization globally confirms: climate change is real, human-caused, dangerous, and solvable.
The irony? This person implicitly admits technology and wealth solve problems—but denies the problem requiring the most urgent technological solution.
Clay. your “subtitle” says it all ! UTOPIA NOW !
[ Utopia means “ No place “ !! A total fantasy !!! ]
What a load of horse—-droppings …..on your part !
Firstly : WEATHER EVENTS are NOT CLIMATE EVENTS !
Secondly : The coral BLEACHING on the Great Barrier Reef is a natural and frequent occurrence. The Polyps shed their symbiotic algae , zooxanthellae , BUT ARE NOT DEAD. They simply ‘take on board a new algae !The corals , supposedly most affected , have now BLOSSOMED AGAIN !
Thirdly: And THIS is your most egregious failure : overwhelming scientific consensus. ! CONCENSUS MEANS “BELIEF”….it’s NO LONGER SCIENCE….IT’S BECOME “RELIGION” AND YOU ARE AN ARDENT ignorant ADHERENT !
There is LOGICALLY no such thing as scientific consensus……ONLY SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONING……..and you are “Up S#!7 CREEK without a paddle !
you're dead wrong on literally EVERYTHING. e.g. median inflation adjusted wages have steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
unpacking it all:
Wage Stagnation
Real median wages are up ~30% since 1979 and have grown substantially over longer periods. The "stagnation" myth comes from cherry-picking 1973 as a start date (peak of unusual post-WWII conditions) or confusing household income (affected by changing household composition) with individual wages.
Medical Debt
This conflates "medical debt exists" with "things are getting worse" and ignores the income side of the equation. Actually:
US disposable income is 20-40% higher than most European countries, Canada, Australia (per Luxembourg Income Study)
Even lower-income Americans (20th percentile) often have higher disposable income than the median in countries with "free" healthcare
So even when Americans face medical costs, they typically have more money left over than someone in a "free healthcare" country who paid $0 out-of-pocket
Plus, we're getting dramatically more healthcare value:
Life expectancy: 70 years (1960) → 79 years (pre-COVID)
Infant mortality down 90% since 1960
Cancer death rates down 33% since 1991
We can now treat/cure diseases that were death sentences decades ago
Those "free" systems aren't actually free—they're pre-paid through 20-25% VAT, much higher income taxes, and double the payroll taxes. Americans just have the money upfront instead. Medical bankruptcy claims are also wildly exaggerated (studies count any bankruptcy where someone had any medical debt, even when job loss or credit cards were the real cause).
Housing Prices
This one requires nuance. Housing costs have increased in desirable metro areas, but:
Median home size: 1,000 sq ft (1950s) → 2,300 sq ft today
Modern homes include central air, multiple bathrooms, attached garages—luxuries in the past
Quality-adjusted, we're getting more house
The real problem? Restrictive zoning laws preventing construction (artificial scarcity, not capitalism failing)
Also, homeownership rates remain around 65%—roughly historical average.
Climate Collapse
"Collapse" is apocalyptic rhetoric unsupported by data:
Air pollution in developed nations has plummeted (US: 78% drop in major pollutants since 1970)
Water quality vastly improved
Deforestation in developed countries reversed (US forest coverage increasing)
Clean energy costs dropped 90%+ (solar/wind now cheapest energy sources)
Agricultural yields up 3x since 1960 on roughly same land
Climate change is real and requires action, but technological progress is solving it. Emissions are plateauing/declining in developed economies while living standards rise.
Expensive, Unhealthy Food
Objectively false:
Americans spend ~10% of income on food vs. 20%+ historically and 30-40%+ in developing nations
Food has never been cheaper relative to wages
Variety and quality are incomparable—year-round fresh produce, international cuisines, organic options
"Unhealthy" food exists because of abundance and choice, not scarcity. People can afford calorie-dense foods. Obesity is a wealth problem, not a poverty problem (historically, only the rich were fat).
The Core Rebuttal
These talking points cherry-pick problems while ignoring that every metric of human welfare has improved: poverty rates down, literacy up, child mortality down 90%+, access to technology/information/entertainment exploded, work hours declined, retirement savings up.
You're comparing modern problems to an imaginary past that never existed. Life in 1950 meant: no internet, limited medical care, worse food variety, actual wage stagnation for women/minorities, more dangerous jobs, shorter lifespans, and fewer opportunities.
Progress isn't perfect, but denying it happened requires ignoring overwhelming evidence.
That Fed graph you provide shows that in Q2 2014 the median wage was lower than in Q2 1979. The increase is really concentrated after 2014. Interestingly, this is about the time when central banks started complaining inflation forecasts were low. Also, the employment-population ratio began to recover a bit from the post-2007 slash (until 2020).
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EMRATIO
After 2007 the same paycheck would have had to support more persons. A slight increase in employment required a somewhat large salary raise, suggesting the incentive to work had taken a hit.
okay wait a minute. isn't the Life expectancy in canada also 79-80 years? yet we have free healthcare. And isn't the infant mortality rate around the same in every western country, including canada? same thing with the Cancer death rates and being able to treat/cure diseases that where death sentences years ago.
Like i don't think everything should be free and think some of the medical regulations are dumb (why is their a limit on the amount of doctors we can have?). But what you listed isn't an indictment on free healthcare. It a pro of neoliberalism.
i'd say neoliberalisms worst problem is that it's most popular champions (or at least the ones that get pushed onto everyone) are just the worst type of person. It's the MLM scammers who say you should work 80 hour work weeks and never retire. Mean while they make a living selling you books on how to get rich.
work 80 hours per week? the market economy has massively REDUCED the number of hours you need to work to afford things.
https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1g86htd/groceries_are_getting_more_affordable/
and i repeat: neoliberals SUPPORT A WELFARE STATE. they just admonish us to do it without deadweight loss.
I'm not saying that all neo liberals are saying "we should work 80 hours a week". Nor am i saying we are currently working 80 hour work weeks because if neo liberalism.
All I'm saying is that a lot of the scammers and people saying we should do 80 hour work weeks are pro neo liberal. So people confuse them for actual neo liberal policies.
Also you say repeat.but i haven't seen a lot of neo liberals say they want a welfare state. I've seen them always criticize it. That might be another issue. Like in this entire article I read I saw more critiques of a welfare state than advocacy of one.
the entire POINT of the "neo" in neoliberal is to distinguish from classical liberals, i.e. "we believe in redistribution and interventions to address market failures".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloque_Walter_Lippmann
https://cnliberalism.org/posts/how-modern-neoliberals-rediscovered-neoliberalism
I have got to start following you. Thanks for all the great data!
"People dislike markets, so blame them for everything bad that has gone wrong in the world." Yep, checks out.
Right. Neoliberalism wasn’t the problem, it was that we let the growth of wealth that resulted from it primarily benefit the top. Neoliberalism should still be the goal, but it should benefit more people in the process.
The point of free markets with minimal interference is to actually use the market to help us solve problems. In this case the “problem” that emerged with global markets is that they introduced a billion lower skilled workers into the system. This reduced demand relative to skilled labor and entrepreneurial talent and capital. Thus the market did its magic and incentivized skill, ideas and capital. Thus we get the greatest enrichment of people ever, with a side effect being increased inequality and dynamism within developed nations (where skills and capital are housed). The market in effect was telling all of us to invest and get educated.
Markets, which neoliberalism values, are complex adaptive problem solving systems.
If you want markets that divy up the goods according to your biases, you don’t really want markets at all. All you get is broken markets.
The current fetish over “equality” (of outcome) is in my opinion one of the greatest framing errors of our era.(Not to be confused with equality of process, ie basic fairness).
Exactly. Is the goal unlimited GDP growth and unlimited billionaire wealth or is it happy healthy population with large productive families?
Excellent article. Those who disagree should read some material written by free-market economists. I recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell as an introductory book.
This is stupid and not helping anyone.
I got four likes, which indicates that at least four people disagree with you. Instead of giving some reason to believe my comment is stupid and unhelpful, you insult me. Your comment is an example of what you accuse me of. You might find it helpful to study reasoning and critical thinking.
Your comment was stupid and ironic, hence it was not helpful. If it was serious, well that is even worse.
Your last comment indicates that you're invincibly ignorant. I take back what I said. I believe a course in reasoning and critical thinking would be wasted on you, since I doubt that you're persuadable. Consequently, I'll waste no more of my time on you. Go back to your Xbox, and don't expect any more replies to your comments.
I literally don't care what you think, if I haven't made that clear. Goodbye moron.
I did not intend to ever respond to you again, but I can't let this final insult pass. You did not make it clear that you don't care what I think. If you didn't care what I think, you wouldn't have replied to any of my comments. But you replied three times. Therefore, you cared what I think. In denying the obvious, you have shown yourself to be an inept liar. Without evidence, you accuse me of being a moron. Studies show that college graduates have a higher IQ than the average person. I graduated summa cum laude—i.e., in the top 1% of my class. I won awards every year for being the top student in my department, and I set several academic records. I completed seven logic courses. In only one of those courses did any student outperform me. In that course, I piled up so much credit that I learned I could skip the final exam and settle for my only A-, which is what I did. I assume some other student got an A, but perhaps not, because I received the only A in several courses I took. Because of my academic record, I was offered a teaching position at the university upon graduation, even though I had only a BA. When you initially stated that my first comment was unhelpful, you were qualified to speak for yourself but not for the others who responded favorably. Instead of addressing the fact that others disagreed with you, you insulted me again in your next comment. Furthermore, you've consistently made assertions unsupported by anything more than a non sequitur. Those are marks of ignorance, lack of intelligence, and irrationality. Given the evidence, it's extremely unlikely that you're as knowledgeable, intelligent, or rational as I am. You are the one who insulted me first. I'm guilty of no more than giving you a dose of your own medicine. In short, the evidence you've provided indicates that you're ignorant, unintelligent, irrational, dishonest, and ill-mannered. This will be my last reply to any of your churlish comments.
You present me with a problem: I can't adequately address all your claims in the time I have available. One reason is that you make many assertions without offering much, if anything, in the way of supporting evidence or arguments. It's much easier to express a single statement than it is to adequately support it or disprove it. To illustrate my point, consider this: Suppose I were to write 100 false sentences, each making a different claim. You could write one sentence declaring that all my statements are false, or 100 sentences, each of which negates one of my sentences. But you couldn't present convincing arguments refuting each of my sentences without writing many times as many sentences as I wrote. So please forgive me if I don't respond to everything.
Classical free market economists indeed assume that individuals act rationally and in self-interest to maximize utility, as consumers, or profits, as producers. That is, using available information, they tend to choose efficient means to achieve their desired ends. Consequently, the behavior of economic actors as a group results in market efficiency. However, the empirical research of behavioral economists shows that individual behavior isn't always rational. People sometimes act impulsively, misjudge probabilities, or misevaluate outcomes. But even if actors err, the market provides feedback that eventually guides correction. Austrian School economists argue that markets coordinate dispersed knowledge efficiently through price signals, which doesn't require the perfect rationality of each market participant. The freedom to act on private information permits the market to self-correct errors, making aggregate outcomes rational even if individual actors are not entirely rational.
You ask whether the following is intuitively logical: The free market dissolves everything that isn't associated with the free market exchange. That appears to be a Marxist critique of the free market. If I understand correctly, the idea is that things that don't have cash value, such as friendships, social norms, traditions, and cultural practices, are treated as if they're market commodities having exchange value. I live in a country that has a relatively free market, though it's not nearly as free as when I was young. It seems to me that, if anything, commodification has increased as the market has become less free. People seem to be less kind and more inclined to exploit each other, especially if they can do so indirectly through government action. In any case, I think most people are disinclined to confuse market values with moral values, social values, cultural values, family values, aesthetic values, spiritual values, intellectual values, physical values, emotional values, etc. The basic alternative to a free market is a command economy, in which a relative few people exert control over many. In effect, the few treat the many as their slaves, who are regarded as commodities. That is, since property is a bundle of rights, including the right to control what is owned, given that A and B are two persons, if A claims a right to control B, then A at least presupposes that B is A's slave.
You seem to say that free markets destroy industries, displace employees, some of whose skills are no longer in demand, and send those industries overseas. That seems to be the case, but the consequences don't appear to be as bad as you suggest. For what it's worth, the relatively poorer people overseas become financially better off. The manufacturing industries in the wealthier countries tend to be replaced by service industries that offer lower incomes but better working conditions. The lower incomes are to some degree offset by cheaper goods becoming available from overseas and by per capita incomes tending to increase over time. Joseph Schumpeter called the process in which new innovations replace and make obsolete older innovations “creative destruction.” That process results in the loss of obsolete jobs. For instance, the invention of automobiles led to the loss of jobs in the horse-based transportation system, such as blacksmiths, carriage makers, and stable hands. Power looms, which made clothing more available and cheaper, cost weavers and spinners their jobs. Many others, such as elevator operators, video store clerks, and milkmen, lost jobs due to innovations. Without the process of creative destruction, we'd still be living in relatively primitive societies without modern conveniences. Despite that process, the unemployment rate doesn't seem to increase, per capita income keeps rising, and average people can enjoy better lifestyles than ancient royalty.
You complain about the behavior of bureaucrats, but they're government actors, not free market actors.
You say the free market fosters mass migration. That's true because most people realize they're better off living in a free society than in the society they fled. The US is a nation of immigrants. But that seems to be something to be said in favor of a free market instead of something against it. Economist Bryan Caplan presents strong evidence that, on balance, free immigration benefits both the immigrants and the residents of a country.
You seem to blame the free market for the fentanyl “epidemic,” as if it's a disease instead of a choice. An authoritarian society could not necessarily prevent its subjects from getting fentanyl. Drugs are readily available in American prisons. The widespread use of fentanyl can be better blamed on the drug laws, which would not exist in a purely free market. There was no widespread use of recreational drugs in the US before the drug laws were passed. Making drugs illegal tends to raise their prices and profits, to put production and distribution into the hands of unsavory characters who are willing to commit crimes and to try to addict as many potential customers as possible, and to encourage replacing relatively mild drugs with more powerful and dangerous drugs.
According to what I've read, China can produce small and medium-sized vessels at roughly the multiple of US production you claim. However, US production of strategic vessels, such as carriers and nuclear submarines, is superior to China's. The main reason China can produce more small vessels is that they have many more active shipyards. Since our economy is larger than China's, presumably, we could outproduce them if we chose to do so. But we have by far the most powerful military in the world, so there doesn't seem to be any good reason to make that choice. Bear in mind that military spending costs taxpayers money they'd rather spend on themselves.
You say China has a monopoly on rare earth metals. Although China produces about 70% of global rare earth metals, they have only about 35% of rare earth reserves. Several other countries have major deposits. For instance, Brazil has the world's second-largest reserves of rare earth metals. What proportion of natural resources any country possesses wouldn't be a problem if all nations in the world had free markets, in which case there would be free trade. The dominant rare earth metals position of China is no problem unless the Chinese government decides not to export them, which would reduce their income. If that should happen, the US and other nations would have to get rare earth metals elsewhere, which would probably raise their price due to a decrease in the available supply.
You say liberals claim differences between cultures, genders, ethnicities, religions, and countries are a matter of preference, but you don't offer any evidence to show they're mistaken or that, even if they are, their opinions are harmful. Some of those may be a matter of preference. If they're mistaken, and that's a problem, there doesn't seem to be a political solution. You're much more likely to change minds by means of persuasion than by passing laws.
You say you favor an unapologetic majoritarian state representing the masses. To me, that sounds like either shameless unrestrained mob rule or, more likely in practice, a remorseless dictatorship that allegedly imposes the will of the majority on the population. An example of the former is the French Revolution. Examples of the latter are Nazi Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, the People's Republic of China under Mao, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty. In either case, there would be no protection of individual rights, i.e., no justice as I understand it. It's more likely you'd be a member of the hapless masses than the ultimate ruler. Are you sure that's what you want?
You say “freedom” means different things to different people. To me, it means the absence of compulsion or restraint of one person by another. By that definition, a person living alone on an island would be completely free. I distinguish between freedom and liberty. If someone aggresses against you with the evident intent to harm you and you restrain him from doing so, you deprive him of freedom but not of liberty. He is not at liberty (justly permitted) to aggress against you. Thus, “freedom” is a more general term than “liberty.” It's divisible into liberty and license. It's divided by the concept of justice. Thus, liberty is just freedom; license is unjust freedom. By this definition, I'm not an advocate of economic freedom but of economic liberty (as well as non-economic liberty).
Although I favor a society in which all people are free to live their lives in any way they choose as long as they don't violate the rights to life, liberty, and property of others, I realize that many people (such as yourself, I presume) have different preferences. So, I advocate the following: Take any person in the world, yourself, for instance. Whatever sort of society you want to live in, that's exactly the sort of society I want you to live in. I want you to have what you want. But I want that not only for you, but for everyone. In that case, the world would consist of a diversity of societies, one to suit every taste. I think there should be mutual agreement on a few rules, such as that no society will aggress against any other society and that every individual retains the right to exit any society with which he becomes disenchanted. In the long run, I think people would tend to gravitate to societies most people find most satisfactory. What I advocate is similar to panarchy.
I can't spare the time to continue this correspondence. I believe there are sources where you can find replies to all your objections, but you may not find them all satisfactory.
I downloaded the paper you recommended and glanced through it. It seems to identify a genuine problem, but I haven't had time to study and analyze it. Arguably, “stickiness of endowments” reduces market efficiency and leads to deadweight losses. The problem may be difficult to correct without intervention.
However, the tone of your comment suggests that you're greatly concerned about more than market efficiency, which I suspect is China's possible military threat. If so, I'm a bit less concerned than you are that China will become a military threat to the world for the following reasons.
First, to be a significant threat to the world, a nation must be both sufficiently wealthy to become a military superpower and to be militarily aggressive. Currently, China doesn't seem to quite satisfy the second requirement. Though the Chinese have been expanding and modernizing their military, they appear to be interested in conquering only territory whose residents are predominantly ethnic Chinese, such as Taiwan. Otherwise, they seem to just be trying to achieve global influence rivaling that of the US.
Second, I doubt that their economic policies will continue to grow their economy at the rate it grew in the recent past for the following reasons. Before 1978, the Chinese economy's annual rate of GDP growth was about 2-3%. The economy started to grow rapidly in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping implemented economic reforms that transformed China's centrally planned economy into a comparatively free market economy. However, in about 1988, the government imposed price controls in response to inflation, thus partially returning to central planning, and that trend has continued since then, especially under Xi Jinping since 2013. From 1978 to 1988, the annual rate of growth averaged about 10.2%. However, since 1988, the average rate of growth has been about 8.8%. Indeed, since 2020, it's been about 5-6%. Admittedly, that's considerably higher than the US economy's rate of growth during the same period. However, it's said that a developing economy, such as China's, can potentially grow faster than a developed economy, such as America's. Recall that the Japanese economy grew rapidly after WW II, and during the 1980s, many thought it would soon surpass the US economy. Currently, Japan's economy is about one-seventh the size of the US economy.
It's refreshing to read a criticism from someone who is both respectful and somewhat reasonable. I had previously regretted posting my comment because it resulted in my feeling obliged to spend my valuable time replying to the insults of a churlish dolt. Your spelling indicates that you're British, whereas I'm American. So, we have different cultural and educational backgrounds. It's difficult to reply to your criticisms because you seem to tend to speak in metaphors and vague generalities that I have trouble translating into literal, clear, and specific propositions. Besides, you frequently fail to offer reasons to believe your claims are true and why one should care. For instance, what does it mean to say, “Free market economics results in all that's solid melting into air”, what reason is there to believe that's true, and so what if it is? I have no idea what sort of reply I could give that would address that issue.
I can reply to some of your sentences that I think I understand. For instance, you seem to suggest that you're an integralist. I understand political integralism to be the position that Catholicism should be the basis of laws and policies within society. If that's not what you advocate, you'll have to explain what you mean by that term. I suppose integralism can be established in Europe, but the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution's First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or showing a preference for any religion.
You seem to at least imply that the natural endpoint of classical liberalism is progressivism. If you're claiming that classical liberalism transitioned into progressivism during US history, I agree. The process began in the 1890s with the emergence of progressivism and accelerated with the onset of the Great Depression. By the 1970s, the transition was nearly complete.
However, if you're claiming that classical liberalism logically leads to progressivism, I disagree. Classical liberalism, the ideology of America's Founders, was primarily derived from John Locke's “Two Treatises of Government” and Adam Smith's “Wealth of Nations.” The two main divisions between political ideologies are between (1) authoritarianism and libertarianism, and (2) collectivism and individualism. The two pure ideologies in (1) and in (2) are inconsistent with each other. Most common ideologies contain an inconsistent mix of all four pure ideologies. The most extreme forms of authoritarianism and libertarianism are totalitarianism and anarchism, respectively. The most economically extreme forms of collectivism and individualism are communism and free market “capitalism,” respectively. I put “capitalism” in quotations because it's a misnomer created by socialists, as I'll explain subsequently. In his “First Treatise,” John Locke refuted Robert Filmer's divine right of kings expressed in “Patriarcha.” Filmer's position was based on the fundamental principle of authoritarianism: the ruling authority owns the entire territory he rules, including all his human subjects, who are, therefore, his slaves. In Chapter Five of his “Second Treatise,” Locke proposed the basic principle of libertarianism: every person is a self-owner. From that principle of liberty, he derives the rights to life, liberty, and property, and his principle of justice, which opposes violating any of those rights. Locke's influence can be seen in the second paragraph of America's Declaration of Independence. Adam Smith advocated a free market economy, which, as I stated above, is a form of economic individualism. Thus, America's Founders accepted classical liberalism, which is a moderate version of individualist libertarianism. Progressives advocate increasing the power of the ruling authority at the expense of those who are ruled and transitioning the economy to socialism. So, progressivism tends toward authoritarian collectivism, the opposite of libertarian individualism. Hence, classical liberalism and progressivism are mutually inconsistent. One can't logically lead to the other.
The Nolan Chart displays the five main US political ideologies: liberalism/progressivism, conservatism, authoritarianism, (individualist) libertarianism, and centrism. You seem to suggest that individualist libertarianism is inconsistent. But you present no proof that that's the case. I've constructed a complex argument that demonstrates that all positions on the Nolan Chart except for pure libertarianism are internally inconsistent. All except pure libertarianism and pure totalitarianism are inconsistent mixtures of the pure ideologies I mentioned above. Surprisingly, even pure totalitarianism is inconsistent, because what behavior one totalitarian prohibits another might require, and a given totalitarian might later arbitrarily require what he had previously prohibited. In contrast, two pure libertarians who made no factual or logical errors would always agree with each other. That's because pure libertarianism is logically consistent, since it follows from mutually consistent principles. My argument is far too long to present more details here.
“Capitalism” is a socialist term that free market advocates are now stuck with. Supposedly, capitalists get the lion's share of wealth created in a free market economy. Many years ago. I did an economic analysis using data from a comprehensive equities research service that had this result: If you subtract all business expenses of the average corporation except payroll costs from gross sales and call the remainder “profits,” employees receive 85% of the profits, and stockholders get only 15% and take virtually all the risk of loss. So, capitalism had better be called “employee-ism” or “labor-ism.” However, as Thomas Sowell points out, there is a still better name: “consumerism.” In a free market economy, the consumer is king. The only legal way producers can consistently make profits in a free market economy is by producing relatively high-quality goods and services at relatively low cost—i.e., relative to potential competitors. Economics can be defined as the science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth (goods and services). Notice that consumption, at the end of the series, is the aim of production and distribution. That is, the purpose of an economic system is to provide wealth to consumers. Every living thing is a consumer. We all must consume to survive. The free market has been demonstrated repeatedly to maximize wealth. Perhaps you've seen the “hockey stick” graph that shows how wealth increased exponentially with the introduction of economic freedom, or the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index, which shows a positive correlation between the wealth of nations and economic freedom.
You seem to say that free market economics leads to worsening demographics, the destruction of long-term economic health, and the collapse of civilization and culture, but you give no reason to believe that's true. Absent such a reason, I have no more reason to accept the claim as true than to reject it as false. Indeed, since relatively free markets have existed for perhaps 250 years and what you predict hasn't seemed to come to pass, it appears more likely that your claim is false.
Most of your other objections to the free market are insufficiently clear and precise for me to understand. I can only guess your meaning. For instance, I guess you think free market economists regard economic freedom as almost all that's worth having. If so, I don't know where you get that idea. I've been reading material on economics for about 50 years, and I don't recall any free-market economist taking that position. To the contrary, in a truly free society, which includes a free market, groups of people can form whatever social or cultural arrangements to which they mutually consent. The US isn't completely free, but even here, one can establish communes and worker-owned businesses, which is what many collectivists seem to want, as well as various types of social organizations. Although a libertarian society is necessarily anti-authoritarian, it can accommodate both individualism and collectivism. The wealth created in a free market has lifted people from grinding poverty and freed up their time to pursue other activities besides trying to scratch out a bare subsistence.
I may not be able to reply to other comments because I'm working on several projects that require my time. If you're willing to read an economic and a moral defense of capitalism, I recommend “The Capitalist Manifesto” by Johan Norberg and “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” by Ayn Rand, respectively. Also, I've seen excellent reviews of “In Defense of Capitalism: Debunking the Myths” by Rainer Zitelmann, which I haven't read yet.
From 4chan shitposter to Francis Fukuyama II is an amazing career arc.
I was just reading something of his yesterday on Substack and thinking to myself how he has progressed to one of the more open minded and interesting authors out there.
I have long considered myself a neoliberal...but a neoliberal with a heart. I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.
Neoliberalism gets a bad rap because of the way its purists proponents demand that it be practiced, and the way the purest possible practices of it inevitably lead to corruption and government capture by the wealthy.
Notice I said "purest possible practices", not "pure practice". I say it this way because it points to the huge hole in libertarian thinking on neoliberalism that opponents of neoliberalism feel in their guts even if they rarely articulate it well. Simply, people are lazy and greedy and if they can they will do what they can to rig the game to their advantage. Sure if neoliberalism could be practiced in its pure form it would work great, but pure practice is impossible. Even getting kinda sorta close is impossible.
Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful, and deludes itself into believing that a small government can act as an incorruptible referee that would allow "the invisible hand" to work its magic. What in the history of mankind supports this delusion? It's an astonishingly naive faith based notion.
The wealthy have never been restrained by markets. Throughout history, at every turn, they have rigged the markets and given the invisible hand the middle finger. Nothing in orthodox neoliberal philosophy can restrain the powerful and prevent them from rentseeking and government capture. But neoliberalism can’t work if the powerful can rig the game. The only way to save neoliberalism is to go outside of it.
The only thing that has ever blunted the ability of the wealthy and powerful to rig the game in their favor is giving significant governmental power to workers and consumers. While everyday people aren’t going to act as intentional agents of the markets, they will, like the wealthy, try and rig the game in their favor, the mutual restraining of the two agents corrupting influences acts as an effective limiting force on both. Not in any perfect or ideal way. No. It’s a crazy incoherent messy way. But it’s a very human way. And it works as long as neither side gets too much of an advantage. History shows us that maintaining balance is difficult, and that at times we will fail to do so. But governments not markets are the only things that have had any success at it. It’s not the size of the government that matters, It’s how well it maintains that balance.
Parallel to the neoliberal revolution, that shrank the world, broke down cultural barriers, increased humanity’s tolerance for our differences, increased our appreciation for the cultures of others, enriched the globe and lifted billions out of poverty, we here in the US had a neoliberal revolution in our laws and government.
At the same time barriers were being broken down to let wealth flow freely to reshape the world, here in the US our laws were changed to let wealth flow freely to reshape our politics.
The tax burden on the wealthy was decreased, contributing to an historic wealth gap. Right to work laws and other government roadblocks gutted unions. “Citizens United” is based on a neoliberal outlook. Law after law that were barriers to the super wealthy were struck down and replaced with laws that granted them rights to transform their disproportionate wealth into disproportionate political power.
It is the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our laws that have brought our democracy to near collapse and our government captured by a segment of wealthy interests who have successfully found favor with our corrupt president. It’s the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our rule of law by our Supreme Court that allows him to do it.
It’s the right wing fatih in,and applied dogma of neoliberalism that has brought our economy to a state that is profoundly anti neoliberal.
After all that I imagine people saying… “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!” I call myself a neoliberal because I believe, no, I know, that within a framework, it works. It works great. I believe that markets are the best and most efficient ways to allocate and distribute wealth. Where I differ from orthodox neoliberals is I reject their utopian, ridiculous faith in markets being self regulating.
I said…”I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.”
For example, I think we should force people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational, like housing, healthcare, retirement and education. Citizens who can't afford to meet that minimum amount would have their investments subsidized by the government to bring them up to that minimum level. The return on those investments will be guaranteed by the government.
All of what I advocate above is the kinda thing I mean by making allowances for human weakness. It’s ridiculously opposed to neoliberal orthodoxy. It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government. It transfers wealth down the ladder. It empowers the average joe, despite himself.
It’s exactly what neoliberal darling Singapore does. Neoliberalism can have a heart. It can be realistic about human weakness and make accommodation for them instead of defaulting to social darwinism.
Not only can Neoliberalism have a heart, it works best when it has one, and dies when it doesn’t.
> Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful
utter nonsense. the "neo" distinguishes it from classical liberalism, and entails that it supports addressing market failures (negative externalities, monopolies, etc.) as well as supporting redistribution (ideally with minimal deadweight loss).
https://cnliberalism.org/posts/how-modern-neoliberals-rediscovered-neoliberalism
Is interesting that there other neo-liberal like me
That just lovely
I am also neoliberal
I have found over the years that my views tend to get rejected from both sides. lol
Similar Case
My political views is Also rejected by left and right
Handuan ! Ah ! BUT the CENTRE loves you !!
Yeah I know
I do veiw myself centrist
And I do agree with many centrists stance like correct market failures for example
William Ellis states: "I have long considered myself a neoliberal........but a neoliberal with a heart."......and........"For example, I think we should FORCE people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational..........It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government.
It transfers wealth down the ladder.....[ but probably into an "official's BANK ACCOUNT" ]
It empowers the average joe, despite himself.........“ That's "Even getting kinda sorta close " to a Mafia neoliberal .........with a gun ! [ If you are going to enforce it ! ]
He also states : “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!”
Finally !............ At last I can agree with you !!!
lol. I don't think you know how singapore's social welfare system works. Either that or you think they practice Mafia neoliberalism.
William Ellis : Re: Singapore......"you think they practice Mafia neoliberalism."
To quote your previous article : "Even getting kinda sorta close " ...... YES !
'Neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that advocates for free-market capitalism with minimal government intervention. It emphasizes policies such as privatization, deregulation, free trade, and reduced government spending, with the belief that these measures promote economic growth and individual freedom.' HOWEVER , Singapore has a VERY INTERVENTIONIST GOVERNMENT !
'Singapore is widely recognized for having a highly interventionist government policy, characterized by strong state guidance in economic development, urban planning, and other areas. This approach involves the government actively using policies like financial incentives, industrial planning, and regulations to steer the economy and achieve national goals, though it has evolved over time to include more market-oriented strategies and public-private partnerships.'
AND....YES....IT HAS BEEN HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL if you only use monetary values !
Rule of law is STRICT and SEVERE [ .....and I really wish "OUR" legal system actually punished the law-breakers instead of "understanding the situation of the poor miscreant" and compounding the crime and further punishing the victim !!!!] and FREEDOM only exists in a very narrow margin within those laws . Everything else is STATE CONTROLLED ! It is still a wonderful safe place for a tourist to visit !!!
A political system that everyone hates leading to the kind of political crisis we're in now is definitionally not one that works
Pray tell, what are the political systems that “everyone” doesn't hate and don't experience crises?
I believe Freddie prefers Communism. Though he never seems to write about it any more.
the crisis we're in now is because we're _abandoning_ neoliberalism for populism.
Got to agree with Clay here (though I greatly admire Freddie as a writer). We have been on an extended journey to abandon what worked, and now we are getting populist idiocracy.
I don't think your point is necessarily incompatible with Freddie’s. If a system that produces so much material abundance nevertheless becomes so hated that a large chunk of citizens come to demand it's abandonment, than it seems that the designers of that system have overlooked something essential for producing stable societies.
well, no. the design of an economic system is orthogonal to making the public informed. an uninformed public can have irrational hysterical populist reactions to _any_ economic system.
the solution here is something like approval voting or even election by jury.
https://www.electionbyjury.org/manifesto
polarization can be largely solved overnight via simple game theory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4FXLQoLDBA
https://www.rangevoting.org/IrvExtreme
There's two very different ideas in your reply.
If your thesis hinges on the idea that people today are especially uninformed today, I've got really bad news for you, because there's little to no conclusive evidence for that premise.
If it's about mistrust in system, because it feels unresponsive to democratic demands or a public worry that it's steered by a technocratic elite, then you're on the right track.
tell me you didn't read the manifesto without telling me you didn't read the manifesto. the evidence is absolutely massive and overwhelming. people are voting on economic policy and don't know the difference between basic economic terminology and their left foot. try getting the average voter to define:
- tax incidence
- deadweight loss
- pareto improvement
- the difference between demand pull and cost push inflation
- the deaths per terawatt hour of nuclear vs other forms of energy
this is just scratching the surface.
Clearly.
Neoliberalism has improved more lives, faster, than any economic system in the history of the human race. It has substantially increased the global supply of lower skilled labor, leading to lower wage gains for poorly educated people in the West, even as it increases demand for capital and skill. This creates the inequality of outcomes that has been illegitimately used to criticize the program.
Your are saying that open-borders immigration lead to law gain wage or I misunderstood question?
I am saying that global markets brought in over a billion lower skilled workers. The increased supply relative to capital and skilled labor drove down the price of labor and drove up the returns to skills, entrepreneurial talent and capital.
The net result was a billion people lifted out of poverty, but creating higher inequality (which is a GOOD THING) in developed nations.
I'd say the inequality is a bad thing. Even if it lifted everyone out of poverty. It just creates resentment that has partially led to the issues we're facing now
I think most people assume it is bad. I am quite familiar with all the arguments.I believe this is a mistaken framing.
Probably off topic though to explain my reasoning.
bingo.
1) immigration has been a colossal failure. Anyone who read the bell curve could tell it would be, but “neoliberalism” values short term profits to private stakeholders, and isn’t shy about taking it from public coffers
2) all of the surplus created got dumped into eds, meds, and housing. You can rail that these sectors “aren’t free market”, but I don’t see a lot of neoliberals doing anything to make them more free market.
Populists got school vouchers passed in the sunbelt largely as a revolt against elites but that’s it.
In general you should think of “neoliberalism” as “free markets for you, government subsidies and protections for me.”
3) I’m not defending the Chinese model, but did anyone expect that to be as rich as countries that had a forty year head start on them? Moreover, the East Asian net export model simply can’t scale up to china’s population. There isn’t a market to dump all these goods in.
And there is little point comparing an entire nation to some finance/trade hub city state.
4) falling birth rates are largely due to the fact that children are a cost for the first twenty years of life and that’s just beyond neoliberalisms incentive timeframe.
5) neoliberals seem to bail themselves out at the public trough when things go wrong for them
I doubt any western system of economic practice, neoliberalism included, has much of any impact, but is mearly coincident with other factors. My very crude unacademic take is that starting in the 80s we had (1) the computer revolution, (2) the Internet revolution, and 3) full globalization of trade. These each successively drove inovation and productivity. But now, in the lull, we are waiting and hoping for the next big thing.
allowing global trade...
IS A CORE TENENT OF NEOLIBERALISM.
You're right, and so I'll concede it's not a strong argument for my thesis; that human advancement largely happens for other reasons than good government policy. Though I give more credit to the human capitalist efforts that created the result, than the neoliberal policies that removed the roadblocks to global trade
A start to a counterargument
what is neoliberalism in practice in America?
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
Some of the drawbacks:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/shareholder-primacy-culture-and-american
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/america-is-unlikely-to-defeat-a-peer
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/social-consequences-of-economic-evolution
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-sp-culture-produces-financial
"There has also been a greater societal turn towards pessimism, related to, but in a sense independent of, the culture war."
The societal turn to pessimism has a negative impact on growth, progress and wellbeing.
couldn't agree more Victor!
The Optimism Effect is a phenomenon that shows optimism, particularly producer optimism, directly influences investment, innovation, and productivity, thereby driving economic growth.
"Simply pointing out that, for example, the birth rate or trust in government has decreased over the last few decades"
I would go a step further and demand that they explain why and how those things are problems. They may very well be features and not bugs.
Like vaccines, it will become a victim of its own success.
https://open.substack.com/pub/keithwoodspub/p/neoliberalism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2mh5w5
I wonder if the success of neoliberalism could even be one of the causes of political polarization. In a materially deprived world, each citizen has a strong incentive to improve the national economy in order to drive growth. In a materially abundant world, most people have what they need, and politics becomes more of a hobby or niche interest. Politics junkies are sort of like movie junkies or video game junkies: it's something to do with your free time. The problem is that those who spend their free time thinking about politics are disproportionately those with the most extreme views.
https://open.substack.com/pub/keithwoodspub/p/neoliberalism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios
The assertion "These critics are wrong" was as close as you came to making a convincing case.