The World Marks 100th Anniversary of the End of WWI

Jan 2010
4,031
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#81
[QUOTE="deaf tuner, post: 3070116, member: 24642. . .

Personally I dislike the idea as it is bringing politicians that can hide their inaction, lack of vision, lack of responsability under it: "not my fault: it's the market ... can't do anything: it's the market".
. . .

Here in the US, I've never heard any politician say that--usually they say the reverse: "We don't like what the market's doing, so we need to legislate a change." This is true regardless of political party. Perhaps you have an example?

The one example I know of a country plunging into poverty lately, one where people cannot feed their children (or themselves) is Venezuela, about the opposite of a "neo-liberal economic policy", wouldn't you say?
 
Oct 2018
705
Adelaide south Australia
#82
@David Vagamundo

From reading your posts, it seems like you have fallen for a common logical fallacy "after this therefor because of this (latin; Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

There seems to be a clear correlation between neo liberalism and a reduction in poverty. However, correlation does not indicate causation, although it suggests it. So far, a causal connection between a reduction in poverty an neo liberalism has not been proved.


I'm willing to accept that neo liberalism may have helped reduce poverty, but I suspect there are also many other factors. Fortunately for me, I have made no claim. The burden of proof is yours.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia
 
Jan 2010
4,031
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#83
@David Vagamundo

From reading your posts, it seems like you have fallen for a common logical fallacy "after this therefor because of this (latin; Post hoc ergo propter hoc)

There seems to be a clear correlation between neo liberalism and a reduction in poverty. However, correlation does not indicate causation, although it suggests it. So far, a causal connection between a reduction in poverty an neo liberalism has not been proved.


I'm willing to accept that neo liberalism may have helped reduce poverty, but I suspect there are also many other factors. Fortunately for me, I have made no claim. The burden of proof is yours.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.
A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia
In my comment 66 I said that correlation is not causation. You don't have to lecture me.

I have not asked you or Deaf Tuner to provide any info: my questions were aimed at Valens, who I suppose is still looking for some authority to support the proposition that neo liberal policies have increased poverty. That was really the point of my comments and requests for information.
 
Oct 2018
705
Adelaide south Australia
#85
In my comment 66 I said that correlation is not causation. You don't have to lecture me.

I have not asked you or Deaf Tuner to provide any info: my questions were aimed at Valens, who I suppose is still looking for some authority to support the proposition that neo liberal policies have increased poverty. That was really the point of my comments and requests for information.
In my comment 66 I said that correlation is not causation. You don't have to lecture me.

I have not asked you or Deaf Tuner to provide any info: my questions were aimed at Valens, who I suppose is still looking for some authority to support the proposition that neo liberal policies have increased poverty. That was really the point of my comments and requests for information.
OK.My bad. Should have waded through more posts.
 

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,308
Athens, Greece
#86
Again, the real purpose of posting the chart is to contest the assertion that neo liberalism caused an increase in poverty. I don't believe neo liberal policies were pursued in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union--rather a kleptocracy took its place and is still in place today.
Please give me some of your experience with" ultra/neo-liberalism" (a term that is not used by those of us who believe in market-oriented economic systems.
(Noel Castree (2013). A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press. p. 339. ISBN 9780199599868. 'Neoliberalism' is very much a critics' term: it is virtually never used by those whom the critics describe as neoliberals.)

China under Deng was more "liberal" than under Mao. So a liberalizing economy helped bring about the decrease of poverty there.

So please provide some examples of what you mean by "Ultra/neo liberalism" so I can understand what you're talking about then track the economic results.
I find the description of neoliberalism from the link you quoted to be accurate and well-defined. Too bad its next page is unavailable for preview. And I agree, the term "neoliberalism" is almost never used by the neoliberals themselves nowadays, though I do think that the founders of this theory (Hayek and Friedman) did not shun the term. After all, this is a theory that is distinct from classical liberalism, even if it has derived from it. Hence, the neo- (new). It is also a fairly accurate and not at all offensive term per se. So why the reluctance to identify with it? Perhaps because as a theory (and ideology) it is as extreme within the sphere of Liberalism as Communism is within the sphere of Marxism? Perhaps because several of its implementations in real life were very much detested by many people or were very controversial and became a field of intense confrontations? Maybe because something that is not specifically defined and named is easier to pass as the only real option with no alternative, the mainstream natural thing to do, and thus not needing a specific separate definition? Making it harder for its adversaries to reject and fight it? You might find this Guardian article biased from a leftist point of view, but I do think it's worth reading. Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems

As to examples of neoliberal policies, Chile under Pinochet is the first major experiment with the theories of Friedman and Hayek. Reagan and Thatcher policies drew a lot from the neoliberal arsenal, the IMF and World Bank are proponents of said policies around the world, wherever they are called to offer financial assistance (in exchange for implementation of neoliberal "reforms"): Latin America, South Asia, post-Communist Eastern Europe, Euro-crisis Greece and Portugal. You are right about the kleptocracy in post-Soviet Russia, but neoliberal policies were indeed implemented under the guidance of IMF and the World Bank.

Does neoliberalism cause an increase in absolute poverty? Whenever it is applied as a "shock therapy" (case of Chile, IMF interventions) it visibly does so, at least in the short and median term. When economies recover and GDP grows, poverty tends to decrease as well. Would it decrease more in a more egalitarian model instead of a neoliberal one? In my opinion, yes. What neoliberalism does for certain is to increase inequality, which in turns increases relative poverty, and according to studies (the link you quoted included), to further decrease absolute poverty a more equal model of growth should be pursued.
 
Likes: bboomer
Oct 2016
54
Ashland
#87
Hope that I'm not rude in returning to the TOPIC:
Of course there were many causes for the start of that horrible, unnecessary war; one from which Europe never truly recovered.
Here's some of them
The drive for a 'Greater Serbia', partially orchestrated by Russia, was obviously one of the proximate causes.
BTW, when I Post about 'Serbian Statesmen' of over a Century ago, I clearly am not(save to those with a short, jingoistic fuse) posting about all 'Serbs', then or now.
The irrepressible Edward Augustus Freeman once wrote that 'History is the politics of the Past.'
I think that we all(certainly including yours truly, me) should be careful to avoid projecting the politics of today onto the Past and calling this 'History.'
Thanks to all who Posted on this Thread's original Topic.
 
Jan 2015
1,542
Bosnia and Herzegovina
#88
Hope that I'm not rude in returning to the TOPIC:
Of course there were many causes for the start of that horrible, unnecessary war; one from which Europe never truly recovered.
Here's some of them
The drive for a 'Greater Serbia', partially orchestrated by Russia, was obviously one of the proximate causes.
BTW, when I Post about 'Serbian Statesmen' of over a Century ago, I clearly am not(save to those with a short, jingoistic fuse) posting about all 'Serbs', then or now.
The irrepressible Edward Augustus Freeman once wrote that 'History is the politics of the Past.'
I think that we all(certainly including yours truly, me) should be careful to avoid projecting the politics of today onto the Past and calling this 'History.'
Thanks to all who Posted on this Thread's original Topic.
Why is it that Austria-Hungary annexing Bosnia and laying claim on Raška a perfectly legitimate political takeover but the Balkan League retaking ethnic territories from the Ottoman Empire, is perceived as a "greater" nationalist project?

Which statesman from Serbia are you referring to? There is literally zero evidence that any Serbian politician was involved in the assassination.

What did Russia do to justify your allegation as a mastermind behind a "Greater" Serbia?
 
Oct 2013
12,759
Europix
#89
...Here in the US, I've never heard any politician say that--usually they say the reverse: "We don't like what the market's doing, so we need to legislate a change." This is true regardless of political party. ...
I don't follow that much US internal politics, I'm sure You're right. Anyway, from a certain point, it becomes difficult to draw parallels with Europe, as the political spectrum is different, and even the perception, the concept of "right", "center", "left" is different on the two shores of the Atlantic.

... the one example I know of a country plunging into poverty lately, one where people cannot feed their children (or themselves) is Venezuela, about the opposite of a "neo-liberal economic policy", wouldn't you say?
We could mention Greece, Spain, Portugal in Europe.