Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/30/2016 8:55:46 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Lorianne

Throw in excessive debt, public and private, and you’ve got the ingredients of the recipe.

Welcome to the party, IMF-pals.


2 posted on 05/30/2016 8:56:42 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Viva la Nation State. Nwo sucks. Exile the Fabians.


3 posted on 05/30/2016 9:01:21 AM PDT by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
The term "neoliberal" as used in the international context is different than what we in the US use it for.

To us "neoliberal" points to people like Lester Thurow (who wrote The Zero Sum Society), i.e. liberal supporters of capitalism who believe it needs to be more highly regulated and augmented by large safety nets for those who don't fare well in a capitalist economy.

Internationally "neoliberal" means the economics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, i.e. relatively unconstrained free markets with less regulation and smaller safety nets.

There will be confusion. Freepers will hate anything with the word "liberal" in it, but how can we hate something associated with Thatcher and Reagan?

There are those conservatives who lean neocon and/or libertarian who are very supportive of everything that Reagan tried to accomplish and only wish that he could have gone further in deregulating the economy, lowering taxes, etc. However, there are those of us who lean more to paleoconservatism that are skeptical of the supposed benefits or even possibility of a totally free market.

So Freepers who are happy to be called neocon or libertarian on FR should be happy to be called neoliberal in the international context.

Those of us who are more skeptical won't want to associate ourselves with any "neo" philosophy even if it was pushed by a Reagan administration infested by neocons or a Thatcher administration that accepted atrocities such as the NHS as a given.

4 posted on 05/30/2016 9:11:16 AM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

M. Friedman argued that floating exchange rates were preferable to fixed as floating allowed another way for imbalances to be balanced. As it is, Greece, Puerto Rico, etc., would have to actually fix the underlying problems with their economy, which they’re not going to do. With floating exchange rates, they could inflate away their debts, and those who foolishly bought their bonds would suffer.

The bailout solution didn’t work, as it hasn’t in the past. The bailout solution is for the IMF or some other such lenders to provide loans conditioned on reforms sufficient, in a few years, to bring the debtor country’s budget into balance. That is, loans plus austerity. But, it is a phony austerity. The debtor countries go on for years with little or even no progress toward balance. The deficit disease spreads from basket-case countries to marginal countries.

The “capital controls” solution is to restrict financial flows. Supposedly, Greece and Germany will share the same currency, as will the U.S. and P.R., but there will be controls on the financial transactions between Greece and Germany, and the U.S. and P.R.

Capital controls are part of the “policy options” of countries like communist China. Not open and democratic countries. We are sliding into serfdom, so the crony capitalists as our masters.


6 posted on 05/30/2016 9:27:32 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne; All

“I rejected NAFTA and GATT as bad before the election, but embraced them as good after the election.”

-Hillary Clinton’s husband


11 posted on 05/30/2016 11:39:15 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson