Are You A Neo-Liberal?

[Joe]

Many newcomers to Argentina and LatAm may be unfamiliar with the term "Neo-Liberal". In North America, the closest corresponding term, IMO, is "Libertarian". Since they both derive from the word "Liberty" I think it is a good comparison.

Neo-Liberalism advocates a free-market approach to the economy whilst reducing government involvement.

A Neo-Liberal has become a perjorative term in LatAm used by the Left to criticize the Right much like the word "Liberal" in North America is a perjorative term used by the Right to criticize the Left. So remember, North American "Liberal" and South American "Neo-Liberal" are a TOTALLY DIFFERENT species. There will be a test so don't forget!

Maybe the closest thing to a Neo-Liberal party today is the UKIP party in the UK.

The true Peronist hates the Neo-Liberal with a passion. Neo-Liberalism in Argentina is associated with Menem. This is ironic because the two most important policies of Menem were abhorent to free market advocates:

1) a fixed exchange rate "see Convertibilidad"
2) a corrupt privatization policy designed to enrich Menem Cronies

While Neo-Liberalism favors Privatization, it favors getting the maximum price to lower government debt and/or reduce taxes to spur the economy. Menem's program did neither. It was just another big government corruption project.

And a Neo-Liberal believes in Free Markets. Neo-Liberalism would NEVER, NEVER favor a fixed exchange rate like the 1 to 1 rate of Menem's Convertibilidad.

 

[EricLovesBA]

I find a lot of logic in the libertarian views on free markets, small government with limited powers, governments unable to interfere with markets, print money, redistribute wealth, etc. Anarcho capitalism is even interesting from similar perspectives. Of all the ism's out there, the libertarian philosophy is perhaps most attractive for me, especially in terms of an efficiently running economy. I like how the incentives go in the correct direction - to work and be productive and efficient, with real money limiting the spending of government, governments being unable to finance being a police state, etc.

Some issues which don't seem to be fully addressed in these systems:
*without regulation, how will the environment be protected?
*do children born to rich/poor really have an equal shot at competing in life in such a system?
*is it really entirely fair that the world's natural resources are not shared equally, a sort of birth right if you will?
*they claim that only governments enable monopolies, by overreaching powers and being bought by corporations and a free market doesn't generate them, but I wonder if this is really true.

We really don't have examples of free market economies, but when I think of true free capitalism, I picture something like early US history, craftsmen, and artisans, small business, farmers, etc people working and producing independently.

 

[Rich One]

suggest Threads on Political subjects be discontinued. IMO It only creates animosity, hatred and heated arguments that change no ones mind . I abstain.

 

[Joe]

I think this thread will show is that the majority of BAexpats are Foreigners with Neo-Liberal sympathies.

Posts are colored by people's political perspectives. It should be known that this forum is a Neo-Liberal ghetto in a Peronist Paradise.

 

[Yogur griego]

This is certainly a ghetto in a Peronist Paradise but that has more to do with a general capacity of critical thinking than a specific ideology. I don't associate my own views with any ideology, and I think it's dangerous to group-think too much along certain set, aggressive lines, which is why questionable mass movements like kirchnerismo/Fascism-peronismo/Communism/etc always frighten me and why I always do my best to fight their undemocratic ambitions in whatever context.

I put a lot of emphasis on individual responsibility and freedom and see the state as ideally a modest organizations of public servants (not the corrupt, power-thirsty bastards politicians usually are) but that is what most people in modern countries do, be it ''left wing'' or ''right wing''. If for you that makes me ''neo-liberal'', or preferably libertarian, so be it, but I don't really care about labels.

I dislike that concentration on economic thinking, while the last +- 50 years have brought an immense decline of Western societies as being actual societies: a loss of culture and values, for which I partly blame the extremely commercial and perhaps even too individualized culture that has been imposed on Europe by the United States since the end of the Second World War. A lot of our current material wealth in the West can be attributed to that development, and I am glad they kept the Soviets out, but a lot of positve values and social responsibility has been lost over the years.

There's always something to criticize about whatever mainstream ideology.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

If "non-Kirchnerite" and "neo-liberal" are synonyms, I guess I'm both by default, but I'm not comfortable with the latter label. I'd like to think matters are more complex than that. When they took power, the Kirchners had few alternatives to what they did, but sefl-aggrandizing opportunism has obliterated their early pragmatism.

 

[Yogur griego]

If "non-Kirchnerite" and "neo-liberal" are synonyms, I guess I'm both by default, but I'm not comfortable with the latter label. I'd like to think matters are more complex than that. When they took power, the Kirchners had few alternatives to what they did, but sefl-aggrandizing opportunism has obliterated their early pragmatism.

Like someone here said, opportunism is the key word in (Argentine) politics.

Or as mr. Neilson wrote:

After coming to the conclusion that trying to follow in the footsteps of Angela Merkel or even of her Chilean counterpart Michelle Bachelet would be risky and, in any case, would require too great an effort, Cristina set off in hot pursuit of the Venezuelan demagogue Hugo Chávez

It's also laziness, entonces.

 

[Matiasba]

The liberals form in the US can be equiparated to the "progres" here.
Liberal in political terms is the opposite of the liberals in economy.

The liberties in economy implies no intervention or regulation form the state, which means, let the corporations do whatever they want, let the concentration happen, the big fish eats the small one, more money in less hands and the rest of the people, the geat majority that are outside this model, homo homini lupus. Because the no intervention of the state implies let people be excluded from formal economy, unemployement (which is a natural consequence of the capitalist model of production), poverty, inequality.

Here in Argentina we had two periods of neoliberalism. The first one started in the dictatorship, mid seventies, where the diagnosis was that the State was the main cause of corruption, decadence, undevelopment, etc. By the time we had no more than 5% of poverty, we had a Keynesianism economy model, we had a relative well developed industry, the black job market was below 10%, the gini index was at the same level than Canada, unemployment less than 3%, since was a full employment keynesianist society; the economy had this "stop and go" cycles which means basically growth with inflation.

So the diagnosis was the State and its intervention was the fault of all evils.

This productive model had to be replaced by other one, a rentistic model, which center was the financier especulation and valuation, deindustrializating, dismanteling the net of pymes, of local industry, and betting on the easy money, the money that you get without production, without value or plusvalue, just putting money in financial circuits that would make money naturally.

The thing is that after the petroleum crisis in 1970, a change of socioeconomic paradigm happened. That was the rise of neoliberals. Basically, they have had accumulated a lot of money, so they had got over the 1930 crisis, and with the petro dollars (because of the high prices of the oil) they needed to lend that money. To whom? third world countries, especially in latin america, where they had military friends in power so they could take debt.

So, the consequences were, by the installation of terror, sindicates intervened, torture, persecution and dissapearences, assesinations, parties closed down, and a huge repression of everyone who thinks different, we had the new economic model that stands that every human being is by himself... they took a lot o measures, such as "apertura economica" wich destroyed local industry, instead of protecting it they made them compete with the "made in Taiwan" products, "reforma financiera" wich allowed total liberty to the capitals, liberating the interest rate so it would be much more cheaper to put your money in this circuit than investing in production, they nationalizated all the huge mass of private debt, this debt that they took in dollars, they multiplied their profits by taking debts without paying a penny because they knew that debt was to be nationalizated.


It was basically a huge transfer from the labour class to the concentrated international capitals. (banks, multinationals, etc). How? with a unconstitrutional governemnt that kidnapped tortured and assasinated people who think different.

Those changes in argentine economy were structural. After the dictatorship, the country never recoveried, we had totally new social phenomenas, like structural poverty, unemploymnent of 25%, 30% en negro, informal job, a country totally indebted, paying huge interests to creditors every year, money that was originate destinated to health or education. This in the mid nineties, where the model supposedly was doing well. Of course the post dictatorship governemnts continued lots of these policies started in the dictatorship, and in the menemismo, which was the second period of neoliberalism, they privatised public enterprizes, took more debt, a lot more debt and made this country in 2001 declared in bankruptcy. This country, medium size country, with 40 million people, the 8th larger country in extension of the world (so you picture if we have natural resources) they made it explode. 53% of poverty, 30% indigence, structural poverty that means a totally new category, it means that they are produced by this new model of society...

Then a lot of these social indicators were slightly improved by the Ks and the reactivation of the economy post 2001. We went back to the growth with inflation, but this is in a totally different panorama. These 53% of poverty they are still vulnerable, although they got out of poverty they have a strong dependency of the economic cycle, if a government comes and cancels the ENORMOUS mass of subsidios these people have, they will be again in poverty. So these improves are not structural, the Ks did create a lot of quality jobs, en blanco, etc, but that just isnt enough, it was not as strong as the menemismo or the dictatorship, it was in the opposite direction, with a plan to recovery the country we had in the 50s and 60s, but it wasnt strong enough.


ps: sorry for my english, I know it lacks of rich sociological or economic terms, I wish it was better, but I think you all understood me.

 

[Joe]

The well respected Dr. Rubilar has already outed several of you as Neo-Liberals that are now trying to hide behind abstentions and round-about arguments.

Neo-Liberals - You Can Run but You Can't Hide!

But seriously folks, it seems that the Peronists have succeeded in turning the term "Neo-Liberal" into a dirty word, to the point that people that are clearly Neo-Liberals will not want to be associate themselves with the term.

Those of you familiar with US politics will know that Fox News and the Neo-Con onslaught of the last couple of decades has turned the word "Liberal" into a dirty word so that people are clearly Liberal politically will avoid identifying themselves as such. They may use the term "Progressive" instead.

 

[scotttswan]

Maybe the closest thing to a Neo-Liberal party today is the UKIP party in the UK.

Neo-Liberals are racists?