 Link: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/neoliberalism.htmlNeoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods and services, and without any attempt to justify them in terms of their effect on the production of goods and services; and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical beliefs. 
 | AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
GAMBARNYAH!! SAYA PHOBIA BADUT!! HU HU HU!! MAS SUL!! :(( |
 | aduh aduh aduh coba ya itu gambarnya! |
 |
There are some dubious points on the explanation of Neoliberalism 101:
1. If Neoliberalism described not just economics - but also a social and moral philosophy -- then why the idea solely judged only on social and moral aspects? I haven't seen anybody raised valid critics of Neoliberalism based on economics principles, while historically the core idea of neoliberalism is the indispensably relationship of economic freedom, individual freedom, and the nature of market and trading as a voluntary act. A cherry-picking approach on "explaining" Neoliberalism and failures on describing the idea's economics foundation will produce a loopsided logic attacking a straw target.
2. Free market is a spontaneus and endemic to human. Language and human speech / conversation can be seen as a market - as we exchange ideas (which can be seen as commodities), we do it voluntarily, and the process enhanced the quality of our relationships and our humanity. The best way to maximize our advantage and wisdom is by opening dialogs with more people. The embodiment of this principle is very inherent to our nature, and any restrictions on this process commonly perceived as a loss of freedom.
Now just replace the ideas and words with goods and service (which merely a physical extension of ourselves) -- then we have a free market of goods and service as a natural process.
3. An Entrepreneur is a risk taker. They risk their resources in order to gain happines. If they failed they will lose their resources, and if succeed they should granted every right to enjoy their fruits of labor. It's a justice. How an entrepreneur can increase his chance to succeed on the pursue of happines? By observing other people needs and by serving them. We should never forget that consumption is the only end of all productions. A products is not an end to itself.
And because everybody has every right to pursue happiness -- and the only way to reach happiness is by serving others need -- a competition among entrepreneurs should be regarded as prerequisite of common happiness -- as the most able entrepreneurs will give the most to the society.
Based on principle above, to condemn an entrepreneur will be an insult to humanity. A loss of freedom. A denial to basic humanity principle. A denial to individuals as well to the society.
4. Should entrepreneurs have control of the economy? Well it's a strange question. In a competitive market, control should not be on the hand of any market participant (as the term competitive will lose its meaning). Therefore the term control become irrelevant. If control become irrelevant, then what entrepreneurs need most? Their ultimate need on their pursue of common welfare is law and justice. They need law and justice to protect their gains and to lower their risks, just like everybody. Are they asking too much?
|
 | robym wrote on Oct 29, '05, edited on Oct 29, '05  Language and human speech / conversation can be seen as a market  I don't think language can be seen as a market. A market, basically, is a matching process; exchange is not enough, you also have to match between what producers have and what consumers want. If there is no match, then there is no transaction (i don't think we want to exchange, say, my hair to your house). And language is far more complicated than matching and exchange.
Furthermore, in language there is grammar (just like in any social life). We can think grammar as a set of rules that are socially constructed and implemented in practices. There is no one single grammar that can be used in any language (that's why it's so difficult to master several languages). And I think economists don't see the world like this, they believe in a general covering law (the market should work for any person in the world in any time). While, in language, we know that misinterpretations are every where.
|
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 If they failed they will lose their resources, and if succeed they should granted every right to enjoy their fruits of labor. It's a justice It is indeed a fair thing. The only problem is individuals, or institutions, are not atoms. They are embedded in the web of social relations. Therefore, a system that works well locally doesn't always work globally. And 'justice' is a normative word; a justice according to whom? |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 having said all that, i aggree that neo-liberalism has advantage, at least, it spurs innovation. and i know that economic theory is really good at explaining some things; but not ALL things and it's not THE solution to many world problems.
another thing, from wikipedia:
Contrary to what the name seems to suggest, most "liberals" oppose neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not a version of the new liberalism of John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or the British Liberal Democrats, which advocated limited intervention in the economy as a tool to benefit people. |
Comment deleted at the request of the author.
| Well, what is fair may interpreted differently, but I think to do otherwise (denying someone's right to enjoy his fruits of labor) will be understood unanimously as an injustice.
Social relations may ask for claims on someone's fortune, but not on denying the whole thing |
| limited intervention? whose limit?
as we may know in social science - every party granted power always use it to the extend. The only way to impose limit for a greater good is by competition.
The problem with government is its monopoly and stronghold (and potential abuse) on physical power. Government intervention even if its on a good intention -- tend to cause detrimental effect in a scale similar to the problem. That's why government functions should be limited on these particular aspects:
1. Protecting and defending citizens from foreign physical threat.
2. To withold law and justice and to settle public disputes.
3. To effectively determine property right in accord to law.
Best government governs least. |
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 In a complex market involving the application of game theory (someone's decision depends on others decisions and expectations) the complexity increased exponentially - and in most cases it's unique and irreversible. It's not just a coincident that the saying: "My word is my bond" has a similar meaning both in the market and in daily conversations. The basic problem in game theory (or economics for that matter) is that individuals' preferences never change. When you use game theoretic approach, basically, you specify the pay-off matrix and look for Nash equilibrium; assuming that the return to player's utility function never change. For example, the value of a banana for me is always the same; no matter whether i'm hungry or not, have other foods, my wife loves banana or have a bananas plantation.
The second problem is that it involves binary decision (0 or 1). I know Schelling put a nice argument about the utility of binary decision because even most complex cases can be reduced to a binary decision. But it's still far from clear what the model can do for multi decisions.
Third, you have to specify in what ways individuals are interdependent. It other words, the structure of the networks matter. Some of of colleagues here are working on the relation between structures and strategies. And it is complicated. :)
The issue is not only about generating complexity, but whether the complexity is meaningful and help us to understand better. |
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 Best government governs least. hmm...which country has the best government? |
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05, edited on Oct 29, '05 The symbol exchange involved is a continuous process while the understanding (or misunderstanding) is the final product how do you define the final product?
social processes don't have outcomes. it's not a trivial thing to extract a case from the complexity of social world.
|
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 Well, what is fair may interpreted differently, but I think to do otherwise (denying someone's right to enjoy his fruits of labor) will be understood unanimously as an injustice.
Social relations may ask for claims on someone's fortune, but not on denying the whole thing sure, i agree.
i don't like the article that sulfikar posted either. :)
|
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 Government intervention even if its on a good intention -- tend to cause detrimental effect in a scale similar to the problem i agree, see my posting here. |
| robym wrote on Oct 29, '05 if it is an intervention, i guess campaign is different form of intervention from that in the market system. ya betul. jadi bukan soal intervensi atau nggak intervensi. orde baru jelas penuh intervensi dan jadinya berantakan. jadi intervensinya spt apa dan gimana ngaturnya. |
| hotradero wrote on Oct 29, '05, edited on Oct 29, '05 mekanisme pasar menurut saya akan penuh resiko karena pasar bukanlah sebuah sistem yang netral. Pasar mustahil menjadi sistem netral bila tidak ada kompetisi. Apakah kalau pemerintah melakukan intervensi lantas pasar menjadi netral? Belum tentu. Karena siapapun yang "dibantu" pemerintah - akan selalu berbenturan kepentingan dengan pihak lain.
Pasar akan menjadi netral bila ada kompetisi karena setiap kepentingan akan beradu -- dan yang tidak mampu memberi yang terbaik kepada stakeholders akan kehilangan pengaruh (dan uang).
Tugas pemerintah adalah menjaga agar kompetisi tetap berlangsung. Untuk itu maka kepentingan pemerintah harus seminimal mungkin. (Dan karena minimal lah maka menjadi sangat-sangat penting).
Sebuah pertandingan di mana wasit merangkap jadi pelatih dan jadi pemain -- tidak akan seru dan tidak akan ada perbaikan kualitas. |
 | yuda wrote on Oct 30, '05 Neoliberalism is waduh ketinggalan ... lagi repot siap-siap mudik nih.. hehehe..
Menurut hemat saya, "neoliberalisme", salah satunya bisa didefinisikan sebagai paham/agenda pengaturan masyarakat masyarakat yang didasarkan pada diminasi homo oeconomicus atas dimensi lain dalam diri manusia (homo culturalis, zoon politicon, homo socialis, dsb).
Ya kalo diutak-atik prinsip kinerja ekonomi memang kompetisi dalam pasar bebas. dan memang kompetisi yang fair hanya dimungkinkan dalam pasar bebas itu. ini kalo kita berdiri di atas prinsip kompetisi lo. persis seperti pengandaiannya Hobbes. Tapi hobbes juga tidak gegabah membiarkan kompetisi ini memakan semua, maka lalu dibikinlah Leviathan itu (sekaligus menunjukan dimensi lain manusia sebagai zoon politicon, homo socialis).
Menurut hemat saya Leviathan bukan hanya demi mencegah terjadinya bellum omnium contra omnes, tapi beberadaannya, dalam konteks ini negara, juga menjamin kesejahteraan warganya. Dan menurut saya, kinerja ekonomi neoliberal sekarang ini sudah lepas dari norma etis itu (bonum commune).
|
 | alamak napa headshotku ada disini yak :) |
| hotradero wrote on Oct 30, '05, edited on Oct 30, '05 Yes you' re right that one of the basic assumption in game theory is the static individual preferences - as the theory dealing only with quantity instead of quality. Nevertheless, the theory still valid on advancing a possibility of multiple equilibria - which counter previously widely held of newtonian perception on analyzing nature. I think that's the most important thing.
Yes multiple options and complexity tend to make things confusing. The rationality is bounded. We're human anyway... :)
On managing complexity - I think flexibilities play important roles. A rigid system will break, while a flexible system will bent. Smaller and more focused systems are easier to adapt on changes. The era of "economies of scale" is over -- the new tenet should be "economies of scope".
Paying attention to the enormous complexity involved -- an all encompassing government business will be impossible to become flexible. They will break here and there. And people will suffer. That's why government should govern the least. Doing otherwise, they won't satisfy anyone either. (as you may see - the statement is a game theory too... :))
Big is ugly and dangerous (especially when it's incompetent).
|
| Sejauh yang saya tahu - yang menjadi prinsip dasar pasar bebas adalah pendapat John Locke - ketimbang pendapat Thomas Hobbes.
Baik John Locke maupun Thomas Hobbes sependapat bahwa fungsi pemerintah adalah mengisi kekurangan yang sudah ada di dalam keadaan alami (state of nature). Bedanya:
- Thomas Hobbes menganggap bahwa keadaan alami adalah amoral dan tanpa hukum (lawless). Di mana setiap individu bebas melakukan apa saja demi kelangsungan hidup.
- John Locke menganggap bahwa keadaan alami adalah diatur oleh akal manusia (human reasoning).
Kenyataannya -- perdagangan tidak bisa jalan dalam kondisi seperti yang diungkapkan Thomas Hobbes - dan sebaliknya, apa yang diajukan John Locke adalah paham yang digaungkan oleh Adam Smith ("pasar adalah upaya pemuliaan") - dan menjadi fundamental filosofi perdagangan bebas.
Menilai pasar semata-mata dari sudut pandang Hobbes -- jelas akan gampang terkelirukan. Dan karena perdagangan tidak mungkin menjadi bebas - tanpa ada wasit -- maka aneh rasanya kalau norma etis dianggap menghilang dari perdagangan bebas.
|
| Gila baru ini gue intensif sekali diskusi di blog... cuman tempo sehari udah muncul berbadai entry. Biasanya yang begini cuman di mailing list...
Tapi bravo buat Aso yang udah bisa bikin weekend ini jadi nggak boring.
|
| |
