Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

    http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/...

    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.

Click here for the mobile view of the site