The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
There’s no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they’re regulated.
“Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don’t exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That’s the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy – or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”. What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.
My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.
The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.
This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism. An actual economic theory I don’t fully agree with but which is mostly sane, and is, most of all, unlike neoliberalism not pure class war. Ordoliberalism e.g. considers welfare necessary so that the labour market isn’t stacked in favour of the employers.
The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.
Don’t agree with your definition of “neoliberal” really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It’s too narrow and wouldn’t fit most any politician.
This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism.
Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?
I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor “market”-based solutions to everything and “public-private” partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they’d be “ordoliberals” in your book.
Ordoliberalism is the German variant of economic liberalism that emphasizes the need for government to ensure that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential but does not advocate for a welfare state. Ordoliberal ideals became the foundation of the creation of the post-World War II German social market economy and its attendant Wirtschaftswunder.
Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.
The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most “ordoliberal” or “liberal liberal” or “neoliberal” or “choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal” states, industry mostly wins.
And we’re just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).
The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx’s analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it…strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
The truth is, a real market is never actually truly competitive. In an unregulated market, competing firms always collude with each other to set prices and wages for the industry. “Free market” ideology is based on nonsense, they’ve proven this over and over.
In a free market, aren’t you free to collude with your competitors in order to fix prices?
In a Hayekian free market, yes. Most (all?) actual free markets prohibit cartels, though.
There’s no such thing. All markets are regulated. Even ones dominated by cartels. Markets do not meaningfully exist without regulation. The only question is how they’re regulated.
The theoretical model of the free market relies on perfectly rational actors acting on perfect information. If those are given, then resource allocation indeed is perfect.
Those conditions of course don’t exist in the real world, best we can do is to regulate away market failures to approach the theoretical ideal. That’s the kind of thing ordoliberalism argues for, and it can indeed work very well in practice. Random example: You want companies to use packaging with less environmental impact. You could have a packaging ministry that decides which company uses what packaging for what, creating tons of state bureaucracy – or you could say “producers, you’re now paying for the disposal of packaging yourself”. What previously was an externality for those companies suddenly appears on their balance sheet and they self-regulate to use way more cardboard, easily recyclable plastics, whatnot.
Definitely wouldn’t solve the problem as they’d just find the cheapest method of disposal to match the letter of the law and go about their day.
Corporations don’t self-regulate. They regulate the regulators. They work and then later buy the refs.
Those are illegal. Already were before. I’m not talking about a hypothetical, here, the policy is over 30 years old.
Yeah if they do that were you are then maybe elect better politicians. They sure as hell try it over here but it’s not nearly as much as an issue as e.g. in the US.
I dunno if I were in Germany I wouldn’t be so smug about electing politicians that prevent a slide into fascism.
Are you actually trying to make a point or did you simply want to be hostile.
My point is that it’s not as simple as setting “common sense” neoliberal rules when the corporations actively evade them. The problem in the US is also more complicated than you’re making it, here we need to basically redo a court which is full of people on lifetime appointments in order to roll back their ruling that political corruption is basically free speech.
The stuff I described was not a neoliberal rule at all, they abhor any kind of regulation that’s not securing property rights for the affluent.
This “regulate away market failures to approach the ideal of the free market better” thing is ordoliberalism. An actual economic theory I don’t fully agree with but which is mostly sane, and is, most of all, unlike neoliberalism not pure class war. Ordoliberalism e.g. considers welfare necessary so that the labour market isn’t stacked in favour of the employers.
Don’t agree with your definition of “neoliberal” really at all, and especially not within the context of American politics. It’s too narrow and wouldn’t fit most any politician.
Do we really have to have yet another esoteric term for what is largely the same school of thought?
I am not really sure what point you are trying to make other than arguing definitions. Much of or even most of prominent American politicians in the last half century or so could be classified as neoliberals. They favor “market”-based solutions to everything and “public-private” partnerships. Many of those still consider welfare necessary as well so they’d be “ordoliberals” in your book.
Actually, maybe not because that just sounds like German for neoliberal.
The concept of regulatory capture is the fundamental illustrating concept in modern US politics. Industry groups and the wealthy sit on our politicians until they get exactly what they want. Traditional and increasingly even social media serve as the persuasion arm for the wealthy, industrial class. Simple rules added in good faith and followed by industry groups via “self-regulation” simply do not work here. Even if you pass the rule and then later try to enforce it, enforcement is made toothless by our Supreme Court.
There are a few places in the country where politicians can hit back at industry groups with some degree of success, but even in our most “ordoliberal” or “liberal liberal” or “neoliberal” or “choco-moco-latta-yaya-liberal” states, industry mostly wins.
And we’re just ahead of the curve in the slow slide toward fascism. Exactly as the Nobel laureate here is saying, neoliberalism is just another mechanism used to hollow out the government from within and make it ineffective until it serves mostly no one, and then that disenchantment with material conditions over time leads to right-wing populism (a.k.a. fascism).
The Marxists have been saying this all along, and I am not a Marxist though I agree with a lot of Marx’s analysis on capitalism and industry. I think there is an alternative, and I think mid-century American politics illustrated it…strong unions, a welfare state, tax policy that levels out wealth inequality, and a government capable of regulating industry.
That’s not even remotely true. Natural monopolies exist because of how natural resources work, and oligopolies or undercutting of prices to destroy weak competition can happen with perfect knowledge by sellers and buyers.
It can’t happen given perfect rationality as it’s not in the rational interest of the majority to allow a minority their monopolies.
It’s a fucking theoretical model. The maths check out, that’s not the issue the issue is that it’s theory, with very glaring limitations.