So, what is neoliberalism?

In Richard Peet's book, Unholy Trinity, he writes:

    The main opposition to Keynesianism came eventually not from the external threat of communism, as most histories have it, but from internal movements for "reform" started by neoliberals. Neoliberalism is an entire structure of beliefs founded on right-wing, but not conservative, ideas about individual freedom, political democracy, self-regulating markets and entrepreneurship.

Peet goes on to relate neoliberalism to classical liberalism, and justifies the "neo" by saying the neoliberals are applying classical liberal principles to modern circumstances, calling for deregulation and privatization of government programs. Then Peet relates neoliberalism to the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Peet is describing the libertarian position -- limited government and a free market, but then Peet goes on to describe the actions of neoliberalism as anything but libertarian -- he writes about coercive actions of States to rig the economic game and enrich favored corporations. Peet is confusing classical liberalism (libertarianism) with State capitalism, corporatism and just plain American style statism in a mixed economy. Peet denounces libertarian ideas by assigning to them all the ills of government/corporate enmeshment.

The purpose of Peet's book is to reveal the rigged global economic game designed by the power elite within the IMF, World Bank and WTO. I too reject this type of globalization, but what has been created through statist methods has nothing to do with what Peet initially described as basic libertarianism. We can smell a smear job. First, set neoliberalism up as a revival of classical liberalism, then assign to the new liberalism all the problems created when power mongers in government and industry join together to increase both wealth and power for the elite actors.

This explains the current attack on the Koch brothers and the denigration of millionaires&billionaires and Wall Street, as if corporations and wealthy individuals have used classical liberal ideas to dominate the US government, the domestic economy and even the global economy. The new classical liberal corporate warriors slayed Keynesianism and conquered the world. After three or four stimulus efforts and calls from government to "invest" in education, infrastructure and green energy, I don't think Keynesianism has been slayed, or even scratched. Peet does say that Keynesianism will fail when tried again -- he has other plans.

The ideas of Reagan and Thatcher and Laffer were a blip on our statist journey, and with Reagan, government was more powerful after his eight years than before he was elected. How anyone who has paid attention to the increase in government power can blame classical liberal principles for the current situation is a mystery. The fact that regulations were captured and power players had free financial reign has nothing to do with classical liberal principles or libertarianism. A government which is limited and does not have power to sell cannot be bought. As I said in an earlier post -- our problem is not wealth accumulation by business people -- our problem is power accumulation, and this can only happen under a form of statism. Limited governments don't accumulate and sell power.

I will go further in the next post and describe the current condition of statism and how writers like Peet obscure the real problems to justify their progressive/socialistic solutions. I will show how a real free market discourages wealth accumulation by a few, and how a limited government helps prevent the human defect of power-hunger to run rampant. 

The difference between libertarianism and neo-liberalism

I'm beginning to think there's a purposeful campaign fueled by anti-capitalist sentiment that strikes out wildly to conflate "neo-liberalism" with libertarianism and free market principles in an attempt to marginalize the idea of a true free market . The narrative which frames neo-liberal economic policy as corporate control over policy makers, both domestic and international through the IMF, World Bank and WTO, has not fairly distinguished libertarianism from neo-liberalism, thus, we get the Koch brothers meme which has them pulling government strings like puppet masters. 

Even when it's explained that libertarians propose a true free market, and that neo-liberalism is anything but representative of a free market, the response is that a truly free market is impossible. But, this is a dodge. The problem with neo-liberalism is the relationship between government and corporations. Especially American neo-liberalism has set up a special relationship with IMF, the World Bank and WTO to support an elite of powerful multi-national corporations. Libertarians would abolish all special relationships which entail government coercion and financial manipulation which in effect creates coercion against third world countries. 

The attacks against neo-liberalism, however, speak loosely about "free market" philosophy, therefore their criticisms give the impression that libertarians are pushing for special corporate deals to empower the business elite over the State. A true libertarian, though, will condemn the rent-seeking corporation as vehemently as an over-reaching government and all-powerful State machine.

This has become a complicated issue, and even when intellectuals describe the difference between neo-liberalism and true free market principles, libertarians have been relegated to the fringe bin. The power elite among the IMF, World Bank, WTO and advanced States vying for a seat at the table of global governance are living in a combination of raw power-hunger and academic wonder-land as real economies suffer real consequences from the violation or real economic laws under the domination of these economic tyrants.

I will be using Richard Peet's book, Unholy Trinity, to answer some of the unfair criticisms that have placed neo-liberalism and libertarianism in the same boat. The basics of classical liberalism are fundamentally different from neo-liberalism, so much so that the word "liberal" has been terribly misused for decades. But it will be after the weekend -- I'm gone for a few days,