Talk:Neoliberalism

Recentism and undue

The article mentions resurgence in 1970's in academia and implementation in 1980's by Reagan and Thatcher followed by a jump to the 2008 correction and recession. In actuality, there were many long growth spurts followed by short corrections that are missed entirely. The growth from 1982-1991 which drove the collapse and opening of the Soviet republics to capital markets (with the recession/correction leading to Clinton's election). The internet commercialization, which was fought by socialist economic models which wished to keep the internet free from ads and commercialization vs. Friedman style open market where the internet is used to sell products (tax free at the start). It drove the growth of the internet from 1992 to 2000 with the dot com bust and correction. Modest growth again occurred with free trade pacts until 2007-2009 bubble and resumed modestly until 2014 (china grew at double digit pace and they continued to open markets, Europe and thee U.S. was flatter with Keynesian stimulus). Local corrections in Europe and USA (particularly a shift from manufacturing to service economies) were more than offset by gains from opening capitalist markets in former USSR, China and India. None of this seems to be covered and it's an issue to jump from Reagan/Thatcher to 2007 market correction without noting all the growth in between. neo-liberal economics did not end corrections, nor intended to end them, only soften them and that is the primary difference from the unregulated open markets. We say this but don't provide all the details or history. There is also little mention of non-capital markets in Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela that resisted change to capital markets as well as the result of stimulus/keynesian spending in Greece and Spain as pushback to austerity. Per UNDUE, a number of areas, particularly criticism without countering views need to be trimmed or they need the countering views. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There is much room for improvement in the article. I have already trimmed a great deal and have not ventured as of yet into trimming sourced material in the criticism section, although I have removed a good deal of unsourced or poorly sourced material. So long as you can present reliable sources (see WP:RS for the addition of the suggested material, I encourage the additions, as well as changes leading to a more uniform format for, what is still, a fragmented article structure. If I can be of help feel free to let me know. TimothyJosephWood 21:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be lots of overlap and confusion with Mainstream economics and Neoclassical synthesis. Not sure how this article fits and how it lives in a bubble. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: Some of this may be problems with those other articles. It's not immediately clear that Neoclassical synthesis would survive a merger discussion. Some of this may also be content in this article that might better be served by being move to related ones. The current extensive treatment of the IMF in particular may be better off on the main article. (Although it is noted that nearly a third of that article itself is made up of criticism.) TimothyJosephWood 12:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I didn't write that clear enough. Mainstream economics and Neoclassical synthesis are pretty much the same thing according to our article and Neoclassical synthesis is the term coined by yet another economist. They are considered to be a Keynesian approach to economics. The criticism in Mainstream economics points at 2007 recession. So does this article but it seems difficult to reconcile that unless "Neoliberalism" is "Mainstream economics." This article, "Neoliberalism", doesn't seem to have any reference as to how it's similar or different from any other modern economic thought and appears to be a lot of synthesis to create a conclusion of failure attributed to specific people rather than a well sourced article on an economic theory that can be compared to others. Furthermore, economists like Krugman call the revival of market economies espoused by Milton Friedman as "neoclassical." There's just lots of synthesis that isn't matching sources that don't require synthesis. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will strongly object to sourced materials being arbitrarily purged from the article because of bullshit claims of undue. I've spent too much time defending this article from right-wing attacks to see it demolished now.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: No on is talking about arbitrarily removing sourced information. However, having more than a third of the article taken up with criticism suggests that there may be legitimate WP:UNDUE issues. Even more so when close inspection thus far has revealed a trend of WP:OR either based on no sources, or "based" on sources that have little to nothing to do with the content it's used to support.

Without actually removing any references, there can probably be a good deal of conciseness to be had simply by writing an actual encyclopedia article rather than a borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of what particular individuals said. There is quite a bit of:

Sam Smith said in 2004 that the sky was likely blue and this has been a well established fact for some time. Sarah Sue wrote pointing out that the sky is blue most of the time but often displays reddish hues during the dawn and dusk periods. Steve Stephens et al. conducted a meta analysis of skies and...

When all of this could just as easily be said by something similar to "there is widespread scholarly agreement that the sky is blue."

All in all there is a lot of area for improvement, much of which is going to take careful considerations of sourcing and presentation. I don't see any right wing extremists here, and I'll be first in line to rebuff them when there is, but that doesn't mean the status quo is ideal. TimothyJosephWood 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: That's a serious case of WP:OWN if that's how you view the article. Paul Krugman disagrees with the synthesis that is occurring in this article. I don't think he is attacking you nor do I think he is right-wing.. This article can't exist as a walled garden of synthesized views and criticism independent of actual economic theory. This article isn't the only one, either. It seems pretty silly to have multiple articles of differing views all conclude that the most recent downturn is the fault of all the other views. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is Paul Krugman a wikipedia editor? (kappa) TimothyJosephWood 14:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

As Uncle Milton would have said: "We are all Paul Krugman now." --Paul Krugman (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A great deal of materials, with reliable sources, have already been purged from the article's criticism section (for example, all the materials from "The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism" were purged, which is a scholarly source by the way: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09502386.2013.857361). And recently there has been a concerted effort to purge all materials relating to the Clinton Administration [1][2], including long standing and reliably sourced materials, some of which I restored[3]. And right wing vandals have made their views known [4]. There is know doubt that many legitimate wiki editors also harbor such sentiments, and if you look at the article's edit history or talk page archive, you'll see that I've had to go to the mat more than a few times over the last two years to prevent them from diminishing the article for political purposes. While I do not make any claims of ownership over the article, I do have a serious problem with editors removing materials because they disagree with the content, which indeed has been the case here on multiple occasions, and given that I have added much to this article in terms of reliably sourced scholarly materials, I will defend such material from being removed unless there is a good reason to do so. That being said, I have nothing against Timothyjosephwood's suggestion of retaining sources but consolidating materials for conciseness. However, the problem with the example that was given is there are three separate sources making similar statements, and replacing their statements with "there is widespread scholarly agreement that the sky is blue" would probably require a citation that makes this exact claim, no? Otherwise an editor could tag the content with WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant was to summarize the sources and then reference them together, rather than reference them each individually with a sentence about each one. TimothyJosephWood 15:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have restored and modified some of the reliably sourced materials arbitrarily deleted without good reason and placed them an a more appropriate location. Please consider moving such material and modifying them, rather than simply purging them. Thank you.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering I've deleted literally half the article over the past 72 hours, if one paragraph was all that needs re-added, I figure that's an acceptable error rate. Also, the material makes considerably more sense now that there is a section on the US.

The good news is that I'm pretty sure I've trimmed everything that can be justifiably deleted. Everything seems well sourced. There's a logical flow to the article. All maintenance tags have been addressed and removed. I think most of the heavy lifting is done.

It could probably use better images still, and I'll look into that. I wouldn't be opposed to a lead rewrite if anyone wants to take the "lead" on that. But overall the article could probably pass at least a B class review in its current state. TimothyJosephWood 17:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll admit the article does look better. There was quite a bit of unsourced material that needed removed, and I don't see any other RS-material that was deleted which should be considered for restoration and modification.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

US Section

@Rjensen:, @C.J. Griffin:

I'm going to go ahead and start this discussion here before it turns into a full on edit war. It's not the end of the world if this stays in or out the the article while it's hashed out. It's probably best to stop reverting now, regardless of who wins temporarily, and hash the issue out to find a permanent solution. The section on the US is a bit lacking anyway and maybe we can find ways of improving it.

So...What does the source actually say/not say? Are there other WP:RS that address this issue and corroborate/refute the source? TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In recent weeks, User Rjensen has been relentlessly purging any reference to the Clinton Administration in this article, for some odd reason, including long standing, reliably sourced materials. In this case, given that it is a reliable source, I believe the removal is unjustified. And no, it's not hard to find other sources on the Clintons and their neoliberalism. I just found this after a quick google search: Democratic Primaries in the Shadow of Neoliberalism--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Griffin needs to find a better source. this source will not pass a high school class. This is a book by Saltman on education policy by a specialist on US education policies who has never written on foreign policy or international trade or healthcare -- he tosses out one short paragraph on p 109 & cites no sources. Saltman wrote: "The Clinton Administration embraced neoliberalism by pursuing international trade agreements. It would benefit the corporate sector globally. Domestically, Clinton fostered such neoliberal reforms as the corporate takeover of healthcare in the form of the HMO, the end of welfare protections, and the implementation of Workfare to insist that everyone prove himself or herself productive. Ultimately, these policies have proved disastrous for the most vulnerable citizens. For example, more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance and minimum wage and union protection was undermined by those forced into workfare. p 109 from amazon.com Somebody inserted China in there but Saltman never mentions China. This paragraph is a partisan screed that's not a RS on this topic. Rjensen (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way HMO's were Nixon's policy from 1973-- see Health maintenance organization -- Clinton was not involved. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The book was published by Routledge, an academic publisher, so it qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia. That's the bottom line. Your comment that the source will not pass a high school class doesn't really mean anything. The link I provided above, by scholar David Coates, corroborates the material from the book. That the Clintons embraced neoliberalism is well known, as the article lays out. I see no reason for the relentless purging of this fact from the article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• The fact that it is partisan isn't necessarily a deal breaker, since there is ample sourcing to establish that the term is often used pejoratively.
• The fact that the work is mainly about a different/more specialized topic makes it a bit WP:CHERRYPICKish...But, that doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate as a supporting/secondary source that is mainly about 90s neolibs in the US.
• So the question is, if we rewrite using it as supporting, and relying mainly on someone like Coates above, what do we get? (Hint: This would be a good time to propose a replacement paragraph.)TimothyJosephWood 15:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Doing a google books search I found these: [5], [6], [7]. These are all academic publications, and there are still others... Perhaps these could be used for a rewrite of the paragraph so it's not based on one source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and since you seem to be the proponent of keeping some form of the content, I suggest you submit a first draft for discussion. Things tend to work better when you can scrutinize actual proposed text and reach some sort of middle ground. TimothyJosephWood 15:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

good idea. get good RS and rewrite is the solution. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I did a very quick rewrite of the section based on some, but not all, of the new sources presented here. It still needs work but I believe is better than the previous material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I did some general switching around to tone down language. It still reads a bit like a criticism section, more so than I would prefer. Also, I expanded the Clinton part with the actual legislation to replace vague-ish references. So I split Reagan and Clinton into two paragraphs. Unfortunately this separated Reagan from his source, so that needs to be fixed. It would also be nice to address particular legislation in that paragraph too. Admittedly I know less about Reagan than I do Clinton. (I'd never even been to America when Reagan was president.)

I haven't gotten deep into the sources themselves, so no comment on that yet. More forthcoming. TimothyJosephWood 18:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It is cherry-picking. If you want a source that says Clinton pursued neoliberal policies, you will find one. But it is better to start with a book on neoliberalism so that we can write about Clinton according to his significance to the topic. Note too that neoliberalism entered a new phase under Blair and Clinton, something which would not be important to the subject matter of the source. Also, it is questionable whether the shift to neoliberalism was dictated by electoral politics. Many neoliberal policies, Rogernomics is a primary example, were not included in party platforms. Another issue is that the U.S. never had developed a significant welfare state or had extensive government owned corporations and extensive regulation compared with other Western countries, so the reforms were less extensive. TFD (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Saltman might be a reliable source, however the text quoted seems to speak of the effects of Clinton's policies on the present day of its publication. It says "Americans have no health insurance", not "Americans had no health insurance". When was this text written or published, and at what distance from Clinton's presidency? Dimadick (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Clinton does not neglect ecological issues?

Certainly some partisan forces would doubt that statement, and more than enough sources will ensure you of that.--Mathmensch (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

And I did not even say anything about the militarism. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The article does not say that neoliberals neglect ecological issues or are militarist. Nor does it say that Bill Clinton was a neoliberal and says nothing about his ecological record or militarism. TFD (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"The neoliberalism of the Clinton administration". I claimed nothing about Bill Clinton's record, but the assertion that his (or rather, that of his administration) form of neoliberalism was free from neoconservative neglect of ecological issues is disputed. Or do you refer to the article that is cited as a source of the given statements? Unfortunately, I do not have access to that. --Mathmensch (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the section. No page no is cited for the source and the statement is questionable. Just remove it. TFD (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No qualms here. I've already removed about a third of this article. Got bloated over time and wasn't terribly well maintained. TimothyJosephWood 22:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Look again, TFD. The page numbers are there (50-1), and there is even a link provided in the citation to confirm what the source says.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no page 50-1 in the book. If it means pp. 1-50, then that's most of the book and little better than having no page no. When I click the link a get a description of the book, not any supporting text. Here is a link to p. 50. No mention of ecological issues. TFD (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"50-1" means pages 50 and 51. Scroll down to page 51 and you'll see it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Critique of the Terminology Section

There is mention of current usage of neoliberalism in the origins section, which makes the whole terminology section repetitive and unclear. There need to be edits made in this section to add distinction and clarity. The structure of the current usage section should also be revised. Maybe having the bullet points first and more elaboration following? Also, I believe the amount of information in this section should be reduced to a more concise summary. In addition, it seems unnecessary to have two longish paragraphs dedicated to discussing how the definition of neoliberalism has changed and been contested when the bulk of this information can be elaborated on in the terminology section. I also believe that the viewpoints from this source are overrepresented in the terminology section and the article as a whole. After reviewing the source, the claims asserted from the source may not be deployed in the most efficient and concise way in the article. Toothlessk (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

addition: green neoliberalism

I'd like to add some infos about green neoliberalism. What would be the place to do that? Should I put it somewhere in this article or make a new one? T.br273 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hayak's views in contrast witj Keynes in the development of neoliberal thought.

In reference to the Monte Pelerin Society section, referencing the contrast between Keynes and Hayak would augment the discussion of Neoliberalism. Keynes, representing the welfare state and economic planning aspect of capitalism, was the main philosophical contrast to the free market capitalist ideals Hayak and Friedman share. The section could be more helpful in explaining the intellectual background, as the thinkers who gathered at the meetings often shared an ideal about the market as a force of nature that cannot be controlled.

Hayak notes "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." This directly contradicts Keynes's ideas about protecting citizens from the dangers of the market through regulation. Hayak and Keynes battle of ideas is an important contrast to note when discussing the history of neoliberalism. Nwoeppel (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC) 9/25/16

Mont Pelerin Society is an international organization composed of economists (Hayek was one of the founders). The society advocates for freedom of expression, free market economic policies, and the political values of an open society. The members see the Society as an effort to interpret in modern terms the fundamental principles of economic society as expressed by those classical economists, political scientists, and philosophers who have inspired many in Europe, America and throughout the Western World felicetsai (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) 10/6/16

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicetsai (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)