Why do Conservatives Embraces Libertarians, but Neo-Liberals Don't?

[phenomena]

I think Lucrum is actually fairly conservative.

Quote from RCG Trader:

Hmmm, I've noticed this in this thread. No Neo-liberals have responded. Conservatives have spoken up, other Libertarians have spoken up. No Neo-Libs.

Hermit?

You have the floor?

777? Lucrum? Bigdavediode?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from phenomena:

I think Lucrum is actually fairly conservative.

It gets foggy, no disrespect to anyone in particular. I just noticed the left has not chimed in, and I cannot help but wonder why. Im pretty sure if they do show it will be with an ad hom. But, hey, I can hope.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:
Hmmm, I've noticed this in this thread. No Neo-liberals have responded...
... Lucrum?

I've been called a lot of things here. But this is the first time anyone thought I was a liberal.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:



I've been called a lot of things here. But this is the first time anyone thought I was a liberal.

Thanks for clarifying that Lucrum. More interesting is that yet another conservative has chimed in to clarify he is not a liberal. On this thread political ideologies have been brought up and discussed, as what should happen in a free republic.

I read somewhere that Neo-Libs cannot freely discuss their ideology in a public forum. They must pass their agenda legislatively in the middle of the night, or thru activist judges......

Thoughts?

 

[RCG Trader]

I made the mistake in years past, even very recently, of calling myself a liberal, not understanding that classical liberals are now what are called libertarians.

After that, I have been able to get people motivated towards government. A lot of "liberals" are actually libertarians. This is what got Pres. Obama into office. Hope and change was that no one could do worse than Bush the Younger, no one. I am sad to admit that I voted for Bush the Younger, both times.

When the media speaks of "independents" they are actually talking about libertarians, but as phenomena has pointed out, for some reason they don't want the people talking about that particular axis on the political spectrum. They want left and right only.

I think the Tea Party began because some folks started thinking about that axis. Ron Paul is a champion of that axis, but he draws out the nutbirds en masse. I hate that.

Full out nationalization of key industries is not what most people voted for. I think that before it is over, Pres. Obama will understand what Pres. Clinton did and bring the democrats towards the center.

 

[Ricter]

You appear to be equating the left with neoliberalism. I really don't know much about the term; the wiki gives this definition:

"Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.

In the 1970s some Latin American economists began using "neoliberalismo" to designate their program of market-oriented reforms. By the 1990s, however, the term "neoliberalism" had become a pejorative to classical liberal critics, who dismissed it as a catchphrase invented by academic radicals to denigrate the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Neo-liberalism first took hold in Chile under Augusto Pinochet (from 1973) and spread, first to Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher (from 1979) and the United States under Ronald Reagan (from 1981)."

In that light, I don't see how neoliberalism is socialist.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Ricter:

You appear to be equating the left with neoliberalism. I really don't know much about the term; the wiki gives this definition:

"Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.

In the 1970s some Latin American economists began using "neoliberalismo" to designate their program of market-oriented reforms. By the 1990s, however, the term "neoliberalism" had become a pejorative to classical liberal critics, who dismissed it as a catchphrase invented by academic radicals to denigrate the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Neo-liberalism first took hold in Chile under Augusto Pinochet (from 1973) and spread, first to Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher (from 1979) and the United States under Ronald Reagan (from 1981)."

In that light, I don't see how neoliberalism is socialist.

Thanks for your reply.

Neo-Libs as I can see want government to tell us what we can and cannnot do. I have an issue with that.

I don't have an issue with anyone. I believe that as long as you can afford your lifestyle, then live it.

Neo-Libs, from what I can ascertain, want me to subsidize substandard ways of living.

I have a problem with that.

If your way of life become bad for your bottom line, then you need to change how you are living.

I have no interest in rewarding bad behavior.

 

[RCG Trader]

And, if anyone is confused, I believe in free markets. No one should have been bailed out.

Free markets.

If I fuck up, then the free markets will eliminate me.

I have no issue with that.

That is why i am a trader.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Ricter:

You appear to be equating the left with neoliberalism. I really don't know much about the term; the wiki gives this definition:

"Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.

In the 1970s some Latin American economists began using "neoliberalismo" to designate their program of market-oriented reforms. By the 1990s, however, the term "neoliberalism" had become a pejorative to classical liberal critics, who dismissed it as a catchphrase invented by academic radicals to denigrate the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Neo-liberalism first took hold in Chile under Augusto Pinochet (from 1973) and spread, first to Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher (from 1979) and the United States under Ronald Reagan (from 1981)."

In that light, I don't see how neoliberalism is socialist.

And btw, I did not miss that you tried to tie me and my beliefs to Pinochet.

Edit: I realize that you were not talking about me. Sorry. I may be a bit reactionary.

Libertarians are used to catching it from both sides. You are saying Neo-Libs are akin to Pinocet. Well I hope not, because Neo-Libs are who governs the US at this point

 

[trefoil]

Ricter's trying to educate you. One more time:

Neo-liberals are monetarists; they were the "Chicago boys". They basically prescribed neo-classical solutions to the Chilean government. The Chicago School of monetarism I've seen described as "Austrian light".
I leave it up to you to decide how close or far they are to your school of thought, but they have nothing to do with modern liberalism, which are the folks you're aiming at.
We, as you know, like Keynes, Minsky, people like that.
Our beef on a theoretical level with you guys is simple: you don't actually live in the real world. It's very easy to say "no" to everything, but you know, once you get past the age of two, that kind of reaction gets old.
How childish do we think you are? The below is from "A Dynamic Theory of Forward Exchange", an old book by Paul Einzig on how forward exchange influences and is influenced by the spot fx exchange rate. It details how Mises insisted, despite detailed evidence to the contrary, that the Austro-Hungarian central bank responded to a currency crisis not through the forward exchange market, but through buying and selling gold, in a manner consistent with the classic gold standard. It's long but worth it for the light it sheds on the libertarian mindset:

There can be no doubt that the reason why money rates remained low in Austria was that, as a result of the Central Bank's tactics, the transfer of short-term funds to London or Berlin, whether through covered or uncovered arbitrage, was checked. It may be asked, however, whether the overvaluation of the forward krone and the depreciation of the spot krone were really the result of deliberate policy, or whether they resulted merely from the higher bank rates in London or Berlin, and from speculative forward buying of kronen, stimulated by the fact that the spot krone was at gold export point. Federn staked his whole reputation on his assertion in his various articles that official policy was the cause. On the other hand, his formidable antagonist, Mises, was equally emphatic in denying that any special devices had been applied to the Austro-Hungarian bank, in 1907 or at any other time, for the purpose of discouraging an outflow of funds. Federn goes into minute details in describing how the policy was carried out, showing how the Austo-Hungarian bank discriminated between the demand for foreign currencies for commercial purposes and for the purpose of interest arbitrage, by refusing to sell spot currencies while selling freely for forward delivery, on the assumption that in the then existing circumstances those who bought Forward Exchange could not possibly use the funds for interest arbitrage. Being in close contact with the market as the leading financial Editor of his day he was in an excellent position to ascertain the facts, and his facts were never called into question by anyone apart from Mises.
Although Mises had a well-deserved international reputation as a theoretical economist, he had no first-hand contact with the markets, nor even, it seems, an adequate knowledge of its essential technical details. He appeared to confuse long bills with Forward Exchange, which, for an Austrian economist specialising in monetary questions, was surprising even for pre-1914 days. The only evidence he quoted in support of his argument was a statement by Dr. von Bilinski, then governor of the Austro-Hungarian bank, according to whom official policy at times of pressure due to international causes was to send gold freely to foreign markets in order to 'prevent there a further increase of interest rates which would otherwise lead to an artificial efflux of gold from the Monarchy, and consequently to an increase of interest rates'. On the basis of this statement Mises claimed that Austria-Hungary had pursued, in fact if not in law, a policy identical with that of gold standard countries, and that she had not sought to avoid parting with gold when higher interest rates abroad caused a pressure on the krone.
This assertion was contradicted four years later by Bilinski himself. He had meanwhile become Finance Minister, and, having ceased to be a Central Banker, presumably no longer felt the same need for paying lip-service to monetary orthodoxy. In a speech before the Austrian parliament on December 1, 1910, and in a subsequent speech, he opposed the adoption of the full gold standard on the ground that under the existing system the Austro-Hungarian bank had possessed a very effective weapon at its disposal in defending the exchange, in that it could differentiate between those demanding Foreign Exchange for commercial purposes and those who wanted it for arbitrage or speculation.

Theory over fact. If the world doesn't fit your theory, make it fit. That pretty much describes libertarianism.