Neoliberalism

>considered the major proponents
Source?

>Were their policies failures

UK was suffering from near 20% yearly inflation before Thatcher. Fixing this has a price, especially for unions and public sector workers.

>>2149049
Purely anecdotal, but everyone labels those two as the heads of neoliberal reform (along with Hayek and Friedman (lol))

>Campbell Jones, Martin Parker, René ten Bos note that neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.
One (small) example

>>2148994
>So my question to YOU /his/, is why are these two leaders pushed as the figureheads of neoliberalism?
I think it's as simple as the US and UK having a huge cultural export and/or influence.

File: IMG_20161202_194819.jpg (40KB, 617x455px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 617x455px

>>2148994
They were openly inspired by Hayek, Friedman, Rand and others.

The U.K. and U.S.A. being two of the largest superpowers had a much more capable institutions to enact neoliberal policies both domestically and abroad. To that end, Thatcher and Regan were the figureheads for a much larger reorienting of state and corporate power in the western world. Not to mention that Tatcher is highly controversial due to her success at union busting. Regan did so too, but was not as widely condemned.

Personally I'd say neoliberalism has only prolonged the inevitable. Capitalism cannot sustain itself without booms and busts, but each time the booms get smaller and the busts bigger. 2008 was long time coming, and we most definitely will see another crash within a few years, and no duct tape can fix what will be destroyed in the process.

>>2149243
>Capitalism cannot sustain itself without booms and busts, but each time the booms get smaller and the busts bigger.
Get the fuck outta my thread lol

File: b013b18311a01389a6950b9dc27d20de551f1402a48cd1d39c3ffe682efa3c76.png (198KB, 6112x3993px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 6112x3993px

>>2149327
'no'

>>2149079

inflation only really settled in the uk in the 90s, and the central bank is the area to thank for this

crushing unions and public sector workers is related, but generally a separate issue

>>2148994

cultural influence, also neoliberalism is similar but distinct to reforms that were made in places such as scandinavia, germany or france

>>2148994
Maybe Australia did it right? Also good luck with China's whore in every sense of the word

Also

>Sir Alan Budd, chief economic adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote: “The Thatcher government never believed for a moment that [monetarism] was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did, however, see that this would be a very good way to raise unemployment. And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. . . . What was engineered—in Marxist terms—was a crisis of capitalism which re-created the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.”

>>2149664
>“The Thatcher government never believed for a moment that [monetarism] was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did, however, see that this would be a very good way to raise unemployment. And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. . . . What was engineered—in Marxist terms—was a crisis of capitalism which re-created the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.”
Also, wouldn't it have been even easier to achieve this with implementing rigorous IR reforms? They created serious structural unemployment in France, for instance

>>2149676
Huh? Alan Budd said it did bring down inflation but it wasn't the correct method to do so

>>2149681
Good PR. Now people think neoliberalism is good

>>2149698
Well, I am a neoliberal. It's really no different than marxists spamming their shit. I just confused as to why all wildly successful examples of neoliberal reforms are so vastly ignored

>>2149703
I don't understand. Thatcher reduced inflation to have a good image to the masses while increasing unemployment. I would hardly consider the ever rising inequality and social ills created by neoliberalism a success. Again it is hard to parade the success of neoliberalism when one of its advocates admitted its malicious intent

>>2149712
>advocates admitted its malicious intent
He didn't though, you cherrypicked the quote

Budd: The nightmare I sometimes have, about this whole experience, runs as follows. I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. Now, my worry is as follows – that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them or people behind them, who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation.

They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes — if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which re-created a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.

> Now again, I would not say I believe that story, but when I really worry about all this, I worry whether that indeed was really what was going on.

>>2149719
This doesn't contradict what I said. Alan Budd feared his policies might be used for malicious intent. Which surprise surprise the capitalists did get much wealthier.

Make no mistake I did not accuse Alan Budd for any malice in his actions only that he admitted that the policies is used for nefarious intent. Even looking at the context shows that he did worry about the possibility and the "allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since" did happen

>>2149719
Also our sources are different though, but even then yours doesn't necessary contradict my statement. Where did you find yours?

>>2148994
Thatcher and Reagan are considered such because of the huge cultural influence of the UK and US, as well as the huge conflicts around the figures. Because of their controversy they became rallying points for neo-liberals to gather around, and created successes that the neo-liberals could point to. (as well as failures that their opponents could point to).

The only other figure that is as revered and relevant to neoliberals is Pinochet.

>>2149805
Pinochet wasn't even a neoliberal. He rejected most of the proposals of the Chicago Boys.