there's no such thing as a market without state intervention. Markets are instantiated by states. — Moliere

Yes indeed. Worth emphasizing again and again.

Yup. Unfortunately so. It should be an obvious truism.

I mean from my perspective there's no such thing as a market without state intervention. Markets are instantiated by states.

Like the grey or black market? They arise not because of state intervention, but in spite of it. Markets are considered spontaneous just as much as they are considered planned.

Without state intervention the stateless nature of corporations means the state gets no revenue through taxation of such entities as they could easily offshore to some tiny island with a population of 10 people whilst profiiteering of a country whose population is 500 million.

Yup, like them too. They trade in money, after all -- legal tender, and all that.

Like the grey or black market? They arise not because of state intervention, but in spite of it. Markets are considered spontaneous just as much as they are considered planned. — NOS4A2

Correct. Free markets first appeared toward the end of the Bronze Age, probably as a result of the declining power of states.

Europe's rise from the Dark Ages started with free markets that ministered to trade with the Middle East. Powerful European states came later.

I guess I don't know what you're referring to then. — frank

pointed out some of the events I was thinking of. There's a list on wikipedia, but some of those I wouldn't include because they're obviously of the global sort like the IMF, where I'm attempting to put together something like a ideology enforced by states. Or, perhaps a better way to put it, this is the story when you zoom in to the national level, where the ideology is instantiated.

I simply wouldn't talk of "markets" when it comes to the bronze age. Currency and trade aren't the same things as capitalism.

Some trade in cryptocurrency, gold, or other contraband, I’m sure. Either way, government is not a necessary component to any space or system where goods and services are exchanged.

I believe my response to @frank covers this. Is neoliberalism an ideology that connects itself to the bronze age?

I simply wouldn't talk of "markets" when it comes to the bronze age. Currency and trade aren't the same things as capitalism. — Moliere

Free markets first appeared during the Bronze Age. They appeared in the outskirts of state domains.

The notion that you can't have a market without state support is just wrong.

Either way, government is not a necessary component to any space or system where goods and services are exchanged. — NOS4A2

Correct. Islam thrived in Central Asia partly because it served as merchant law. There were no significant governments to speak of.

Alright, fair. It's just wrong. So not a truism.

I want to restrict the domain of discourse for "market", with respect to neoliberalism, to capitalism. So capitalist markets are what we are talking about, rather than some general theory of economy.

I want to restrict the domain of discorse for "market", with respect to neoliberalism, to capitalism. — Moliere

The government's main purpose according to Neoliberalism is to protect the freedom of the markets, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

It seems more an ideology concerned with how to pull a people from of the successive failures of the centrally-planned and mercantilist past, the ruins in which we are still living.

And you can see how that requires a state?

And you can see how that requires a state? — Moliere

Of course. Neoliberalism is not opposed to the existence of states.

OK, so... it seems we're agreeing as long as we acknowledge that TRULY free markets, in the general sense, can exist without a state -- but when talking about neoliberalism, those markets cannot exist without a state.

I think that's what I've been saying?

Though I'm acknowledging this more general notion of economy, where people did in fact trade goods and services and used currency outside of the rise of capitalism. But that is a sort of trans-historical mega-theory of economy that isn't really related to neoliberalism.

but when talking about neoliberalism, those markets cannot exist without a state. — Moliere

Sounds like a Ship of Theseus problem. If states slowly disappeared, maybe due to global warming, but the global coffee market survived so that Frank could enjoy a nice cuppa Joe while contemplating the demise of civilization, would it be the same market sans states?

Probably off topic?

Heh, I was starting to think the same, in terms of being off topic. Somehow I do that...

Quinn Slobodian is probably the best source on the topic.

Many definitions have been given, having to do with privatization and letting the market run things etc., etc.

What it is, is a way to "encase" the Market (Slobodian's word) such that those at the top play by the rules they establish and let others play the game.

But it very much needs a nanny state to help out, otherwise it collapses, as it did in 2008 and again during the pandemic.

:up:

Per Slobodian:

"If we place too much emphasis on the category of market fundamentalism, we will fail to notice that the real focus of neoliberal proposals is not on the market per se but on redesigning states, laws, and other institutions to protect the market."

Yep, great quote. He's right, as far as I can see.

Heck even people belonging to the Hayek institute (I'm forgetting the name) say that his summary of Neoliberalism, in Globalists, is quite faithful to the original members.

Here’s an article by a self-proclaimed neoliberal, the American Charles Peters, who wrote “The Neo-Liberal Mafnifesto” back in 1983. He also edited “New Road for America: The Neoliberal Movement”.

I’ll just quote the few paragraphs that distill his neoliberalism.

Our primary concerns are community, democracy, and prosperity. Of them, economic growth is most important now, because it is essential to almost everything else we want to achieve. Our hero is the risk-taking entrepreneur who creates new jobs and better products. "Americans," says Bradley, "have to begin to treat risk more as an opportunity and not as a threat."

We want to encourage the entrepreneur not with Reaganite policies that simply make the rich richer, but with laws designed to help attract investors and customers. For example, Hart is proposing a "new capacity" stock, a class of stock issued "for the explicit purpose of investment in new plants and equipment." The stock would be exempt from capital gains tax on its first resale. This would give investors the incentive they now lack to target their investment on new plants and equipment instead of simply trading old issues, which is what almost all the activity on Wall Street is about today.

We also favor freeing the entrepreneur from the kind of economic regulation that discourages healthy competition. But on matters of health and safety, we know there must be vigorous regulation, because the same capitalism that can give us economic vitality can also sell us Pintos, maim employes, and pollute our skies and streams.

Our support for workers on health and safety issues does not mean support for unions that demand wage increases without regard to productivity increases. That such wage increases have been a substantial factor in this country's economic decline is beyond reasonable doubt. But -- and this is a thought much more likely to occur to neo-liberals like Lester Thurow than to neo-conservatives -- so have ridiculously high salaries for managements that show the same disregard for performance. The recently resigned president of International Harvester was being paid $1.4 million a year as he led his company to the brink of disaster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1982/09/05/a-neo-liberals-manifesto/21cf41ca-e60e-404e-9a66-124592c9f70d/

He also favours the draft and makes an argument for it in the same article. His affinity is with the Democrat politicians whom he names. He rejects Reaganism.

I wonder why I never hear of this version of neoliberalism, both the nominal and actual kind, but am told of the kind of neoliberalism of Nixon and Milton Friedman, both of whom abolished the draft.

I think you have it right. As a historical moment with a lot of theorists it's always going to be a bit of a fuzzy term.

The only part I might watch it trying to condense this explanation is "strong interventionist state." This makes me think of European social democrats or Bernie Sanders. But the politicians generally cited as representing neoliberalism are Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, it's more the ideology of the 80s-90s US Republican party or Christian Democrats in Europe.

I've always thought "market economy," as opposed to a control economy (controlled by the state or a nobility with special legal status) was less loaded with competing definitions than capitalism, but it's still a fuzzy term.

Strangely, "neoliberal" in the vernacular has morphed into being a sort of stand in for "center left." It's sort of an insult in the sense that none of the new targets for the label embrace the term; Joe Biden doesn't want to be a neoliberal, while neoliberal theorists did embrace the term. So, you can see right wing talking heads complaining about "neoliberals," while also arguing for neoliberal policy in the same segment.

Sort of a weird turn that I think resulted from "liberal" coming to be synonymous in the political vernacular with "left wing," and further left Democrats using the term to slam their more right wing Democratic rivals (not saying this was a wholly unjustified comparison, but it's not a term center Dems have been eager to use to describe themselves; they don't want to be Reagan.)

Heck even people belonging to the Hayek institute (I'm forgetting the name) say that his summary of Neoliberalism, in Globalists, is quite faithful to the original members. — Manuel

I think so. I was reading a biography of Hayek at the same time I read Globalists. I started on The Road to Serfdom when my interest fizzled.

Hayek believed the Nazis were the outcome of failed leftism. Wendy Brown says his social plan has given rise to a new wave of fascism. Apparently whether it's right or left that fails, the result is Nazis. :worry:

Yeah, all the evils of the world are the lefts fault.

Von Mises on the other hand was gushing with Joy as the Austrian state smashed union workers.

Fine people these guys...

I don’t think there’s much of a difference between US and non-US uses of the term. It has globalized itself successfully. — Jamal

True. And neo-liberalism has been a huge subject of debate here in Australia for decades. We originally called it economic rationalism in the first years of Thatcher and Reagan and here, where our pseudo-Labor government, privatised, deregulated and sold off as much as it dared. Later Britain's New Labour borrowed some of their moves.

Interestingly, I recall conservatives being against selling off assets and privatisation back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. We even had conservative intellectuals writing popular books against the phenomenon of 'rationalism' as it was then known. This is before old conservatism faded and remerged as a market-driven right-wing.

Obama's bailing out of the banks after the 2008 crisis was a conspicuous neo-liberal move. Cornel West described Obama as a 'black mascot of Wall Street.' The point, I guess, is that liberalism seems inescapable.

A later Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, an academic and intellectual, even wrote a high profile essay on the subject of neo-liberalism in 2009.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/february/1319602475/kevin-rudd/global-financial-crisis#mtr

Apparently whether it's right or left that fails, the result is Nazis. :worry:

"Reductio ad Hitlerum" is my favorite philosophy joke phrase.