Skip to main content

View Diary: Geithner and his pseudo liberal critics (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey, citizen k: (18+ / 0-)

    Let me see if I've got you straight. You're arguing that people like Krugman, Taibbi, progressive critics... have been critical of Geithner... because of his insufficient adherence to the Chicago School neoliberal principles of laissez-faire economics?

    I just want to make sure I've understood you correctly. By your reckoning, Geithner is some heroic Keynesian, and his critics are all slaves to Milton Friedman?

    It's a topsy-turvey world we live in. A few years ago, I remember not a few shouting matches over neoliberalism here at dKos, most of which consisted of you discrediting the very theory of neoliberalism as a means of describing the present economic paradigm.

    Now, "Chicago School" has become your favorite insult! Because we don't like the precise form of TARP-fund redistribution you describe, we must all be hardcore non-interventionists, who would all have gladly voted for Hoover.

    Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

    by Dale on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:24:35 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  you are almost there (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sophie Amrain

      I think that the pervasive influence of neo-classical economics deeply confuses even "liberal" and "left" economists.  I certainly don't think of Geithener as heroic, but people who try to evaluate his tenure purely on bank regulation as if industrial policy has no importance at all are confused.

      In particular, the oft-repeated criticism of the financial rescue in terms of market-value (and the idiotic demand that e.g. Maiden lane assets be "marked to market") indicate a faith in the ability of markets to determine values that is poorly grounded in reality but well grounded in Chicago School drivel.

      Neoliberalism is not the same as neo-classicism. But my point in previous debates was that nobody could rationally call the policies of the ACA, ARA, Auto-bailout, DOE energy etc. as "neoliberal" either in the Robert Rubin 1990 sense or the Margret Thatcher sense. People were just using "neoliberal" as a pompous kind of insult.   For example, the ACA turns health insurers into a kind of regulated utility with a government imposed profit limit. This would be considered anathema by Thatcherites and not favored by 1990 Robert Rubinites.

      I should point out that Rubin is now arguing that the fundamental problem in the US economy is the weak bargaining position of unions. If that's neoliberalism, sign me up.

      self-appointed intellectual cop

      by citizen k on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 02:34:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (133)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (45)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Civil Rights (35)
  • Culture (26)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Elections (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Hillary Clinton (19)
  • Economy (18)
  • Labor (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Rescued (16)
  • Media (15)
  • Texas (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Barack Obama (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site