Talk:Neoliberalism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jgallaga.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC about whether Neoliberalism should be mentioned as the cause of the Financial crisis on the First paragraph

Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the sentence "The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results." be included in the first paragraph of the article? 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Strongly Oppose for several reasons, explained below. To summarise, (1) the claim is not part of the most important points of the article. (2) there are no further references in the article to the claim, (3) the claim overstates the prominence of non mainstream thought, (4) the sources quoted to back the claim are not qualified to do so or are part of the fringe. Dryfee (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The 2008 financial collapse was one of the major economic events of the last 40 years and it is not unreasonable to mention that some writers believe that some aspects of the economic and regulatory policies pursued may have had some influence. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TFD's arguments above. In addition, I don't think one can dismiss the sources as fringe given that most were published by prestigious university presses, and as such quality as WP:RS. If the citations were from personal blogs by these same heterodox economists and not peer-reviewed scholarship, then you might have a point. I also strongly disagree with the claim that academics in other social science fields, such as political science or sociology, aren't qualified to discuss this matter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose* Over-simplified and unbalanced. The 'some academics' attempt to reflect these problems is completely insufficient. Gravuritas (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose*. Not in the lead. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to summarize the important points of the article, but the article does not have any information on the neoliberal points. If the article body added neoliberal text in the future, as an important point, then the neoliberal text can be added to the lead. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whether it is true, or relevant, or both is meaningless if there is not substantial coverage in the body of the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. There isn't, and we don't get to ignore WP:LEAD in order to insert a highly visible political point while managing to be too lazy to actually develop any substantive encyclopedic content. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support also per TFD's arguments. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - despite having some sympathy with the argument itself, before a sentence is included in the article lead I would expect to see: a) the debate about the long-term implications of neoliberalism set out in the article, with appropriate citations to support the respective points of view, b) qualification of the geography and time-period involved, given that the current drafting refers to a global crisis but is clearly rooted in a US perspective (Europe didn't implement much neoliberal policy in the 1970s and in the UK this clearly dated from the 1980s), c) more nuanced drafting along the lines of "there is a debate amongst leading economists about the extent to which neoliberal policy created or contributed to the 2007-8 financial crisis..." IanB2 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sentence should be removed. Summoned by bot. 1) I don't see *any* mention of the 2007-08 financial crisis link in the article, which almost necessitates removal given the complex, non-consensus nature of the claim, per WP:LEAD. 2) As I noticed in the "label" RfC, it struck me as odd to call out this one impact, given that the article is discussing a 50-year trend, per WP:DUE, WP:LEAD. 3) It's not a very good summary. The lead section is trying to chart the way this term has been used over time, this sentence doesn't fit the balanced way the article should go. Ideally the fourth paragraph should be improved and include this point while summarizing the current debate over the term and policies. Chris vLS (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - seems WP:UNDUE weight in being both not the predominant line about causes, and also not prominent part of the article so not WP:LEAD material but more something for down in the body. I'm also somewhat dubious about the wording being the right characterization at "some" academics, "root" of finacialization, and at "ultimate" results as if it no longer is having effects. I'd also note that financialization is not commonly understood so would be better to wikilink Financialization. Also, my impression is that the 08-09 issues tie more narrowly and it's only part of Neoliberalism (the 1990's Clinton repeal of Glass-Steagal) enabling part of financialization (derivatives) leading to housing bubble so while that stigma spreads it seems not accurate to say it as being the whole of each article. Markbassett (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sentence should be removed, pending article improvements. Summoned by bot. I agree with User:Chrisvls that the article is missing substantiating info for the proposed statement (which I see is in the article noe). It's hard to argue that this particular sentence should be in the lede, when one of the largest article sections, Criticism, is virtually ignored in the lede. There's an entire Neoliberalism#United_States section with no mention of the crisis. Before the sentence should be in the lede in any form, that section should have some info about the purported link between the crisis and neoliberalism. And, both sides need to be considered - are there sources that specifically say or simply imply that there's no link, or that the connection is overstated? If the sentence is going to go into the lede, and the first paragraph no less, for more balance, I could see something like "There is disagreement among economists on the role of neoliberalism in the financial crisis of 2007-8; some academics see neoliberalism and related financialization as a cause of the crisis, while others claim ...{whatever can be found from the other school of thought}" Timtempleton (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Unsupported No, obviously not. Why is this even an issue? Don't forget, Wikipedia requires testable, falsifiable references and citations, the mere opinions of people are not only irrelevant, they are specifically non-encyclopedic. Would you expect a print encyclopedia t include such opinions? No. So obviously Wikipedia should not. Damotclese (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• No per WP:LEAD. Article body content does not support this statement in the introduction. (Invited by bot.) Jojalozzo (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• As stated in WP:WBA: the opening paragraph should summarise the most important points of the article. But the financial crisis is not even mentioned any further. Dryfee (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• As stated in WP:WBA: It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. But it is not part of the explanation of the subject and no greater detail about this follows. Dryfee (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• As stated in WP:NPOV an article should Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views and ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. The academic consensus about the sources of the crisis is clearly more nuanced that pointing towards an umbrella term, whose definition is not even clearly agreed upon. Dryfee (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sources do not belong to the mainstream of economics, and are therefore part of the fringe, or simply do not support the claim. Dryfee (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Source 1 Marc Lavoie is a Post Keynesian economist which is considered outside the mainstream
  • Source 2 Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton are part of the Radical Theory movement including Feminist , Anti-Racist, Post Modern and Structural Social Work. Which again, are not part of the mainstream.
  • Source 3 Stegger and Roy are a sociologist and a political scientist, respectively. Their subject areas are not the sources of financial crisis and they are not experts in the matter of financial crisis or economics.
  • Source 4 Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy are marxist economists. Again, outside of mainstream economic theory.
  • Source 5 David Kotz, does not argue that the cause of the financial crisis was neoliberalism itself.
  • Source 6 The TIME article does not directly support the claim.

Can you provide any sources that say that the economic and regulatory policies of the last forty years did not contribute to the 2008 crisis? I would point out that whether or not sources are reliable is not dependent on the personal opinions of writers. All the sources are reliable which means we would expect the facts to be accurate. Marc Lavoie, author of the first source, btw is an associate editor of the Encyclopedia of Political Economy and author of an introductory university textbook on economics, so probably has an adequate understanding of the subject. And heterodox economics does not mean fringe, which is not published in the academic mainstream. TFD (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

On whether "I can provide any sources that say that the economic and regulatory policies of the last forty years did not contribute to the 2008 crisis?" the answer is of course not. Would you be able to provide sources stating that each and every economic and regulatory policies of the last forty years are both neoliberal and the cause of the financial crisis? Because that is what the statement is saying.

@C.J. Griffin: Even if the sources were appropriate, the other three claims stand. Dryfee (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I am not stating that it is unreasonable to mention that some writers believe that some aspects of the economic and regulatory policies pursued may have had some influence I am stating that it is unreasonable to include it in the first paragraph (and in much less nuanced fashion!) with no further mentions to the financial crisis in the article. As I stated in the older section about this, perhaps this sentence should be removed from the first paragraph and instead a sub-section under Criticism should be added. If and when this section becomes a corner stone of the article, we add the sentence in the lede. Dryfee (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The elephant in the room is that you do not like the term neo-liberal, yet otherwise agree with what the authors say: there was a paradigm shift in social, political and economic thinking from the 1970s that rejected some but not all of the policies pursued by governments of all stripes from the Great Depression. These policies (not all of course) resulted in the 2008 financial crisis. The lead does even go that far, it merely acknowledges that opinion. You say that of course you cannot find any sources that say otherwise or provide any other explanation for the 2008 crisis, nor can you think of any other reason why it might have happened. But the fact alternative facts or opinions do not exist in reliable sources does not mean those facts or opinions are wrong. I suppose you feel that if the policies had been stronger and closer to neo-classical economics, bringing back the gold standard, abolishing welfare and social security, eliminating public schools and child labor laws, reducing government spending to 10% of GDP, that the 2008 crash could have been avoided. You might be right. But we are writing about actual government policies, not what they should have been. And the fact that these policies resulted in the largest financial crisis since the 1930s is significant, since economic policies are judged on economic results. TFD (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Whether I like the term or not is beyond the point. But we are getting somewhere. Note how much more nuanced is the statement: These policies (not all of course) resulted in the 2008 financial crisis. I think this is a marginal improvement over the current statement. But if not all policies are to blame, then which ones are? Addressing this is important in the spirit of precision and encyclopedic writing. Now, the lead paragraph is supposed to "explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows" (as WP:WBA states) and not to mention the opinion of some academic with no further reference in the article. As for the rest of your arguments, I did not say I cannot find any sources that provide another explanation. Of course, there are a plethora of theories addressing the possible roots of the financial crisis. The takeaway is this: there are so many theories, that the sentence in question provides undue weight to a particular view. Here is a copy of what I already wrote, in case you missed it:

There is no academic consensus as to the entire causes of the financial crisis, Obstfeld and Rogoff argue that it might have been caused global imbalances, Acharya et al. argue that it was because of systemic fragility due to financial integration of markets, Diamond and Rajan attribute it to a complex set of conditions including (but not limited to) low interest rates, lack of information from credit rating agencies, complex security valuations systems, and more. Laux and Christian attribute some responsibility to fair value accounting practices, while Bob Shiller argues that it was caused by a real estate bubble, and had little to do with financial regulation (or de-regulation). So in essence there is no consensus among experts in the subject and claiming that "some researchers feel like neoliberalism is to blame" does not inform the reader about anything useful because the claim lacks precision.

All the statements you made afterwards are not relevant to the discussion, and I will not comment on them, in the interest of civility Dryfee (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement, "There is no academic consensus as to the entire causes of the financial crisis" is tendentious wording. There is no consensus for anything in economics or other social sciences. You then veer into original research. All of the alternative causes you mention are all aspects of the neoliberal political, social and economic policies. What you want the article to imply is "some researchers feel like neoliberalism is to blame" is wrong. Nothing that governments did had anything to do with the crisis, maybe it was sunspots? TFD (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

"There is no consensus for anything in economics or other social sciences." This is wrong. "You then veer into original research." It is not original research, i just linked the versions freeley available to the public. You can google for the published (and pay to read versions). We are not going to get anywhere if you do not drop the political tone. The case is simple: The opening paragraph should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail that follows. The statement does not belong in the opening paragraph. Dryfee (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking with Business Insider in 2016, economist Joseph Stiglitz, a "mainstream economist," noted that "neoliberalism, the dominant school of economic thinking in the West for the past 30 years or so, is on its last legs." Why does he say this? According to an article: "Since the 2008 financial crisis, however, there has been a groundswell of opinion in both economic and political circles to suggest that the neoliberal consensus may not be the right way forward for the world. In the past few years, with growth low and inequality rampant, that groundswell has gained traction." While not directly blaming the crisis on neoliberalism, it can be inferred that, given the established fact that neoliberalism has been the consensus for the last 30 years, some policies pertaining to this paradigm can be blamed for the financial crises of the late 2000s (and the cited sources do just that, in particular Marc Lavoie). This goes to TFD's point earlier in this threaded discussion. If this has been the consensus for the last few decades, how can it not be held in large part responsible for the crisis during this same time period?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: I think that the facts behind Joe's opinion (which are mentioned in several papers of him) are very relevant to this article and could (and should) be eventually added to the criticism section. However, your inferences from Stiglitz's opinions do not belong in Wikipedia. Dryfee (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the first point and added the above source as a citation in that section. And of course I would not add my own personal inferences to Wikipedia; I rely on reliable academic sources, which are already cited. Suggestion: I'm thinking that perhaps the sentence does not have to be moved, but slightly rewritten to remove any direct reference to the 2008 crisis. Something like this perhaps:

"The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics, among them researchers for the IMF and economist Joseph Stiglitz, as having greatly increased economic inequality and worsened financial crises in the following decades."

This is in keeping with the source material and the references to growing inequality and worsening financial crises which are mentioned in the body of the article. I'm thinking that Lavoie's views can be expanded upon in the criticism section as well. Thoughts?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

References

First we have to agree on whether it belongs to the first paragraph, then we can get into proper wording and due weight, for the record I disagree with the current proposal. Dryfee (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

See Howard Stein, "The Neoliberal Policy Paradigm and the Great Recession" (PANOECONOMICUS, 2012): "The role of deregulation and related neoliberal policies as a both a source of massive financialization of the economy and cause of the Great Recession is widely recognized in the literature (David M. Kotz 2009; Bill Lucarelli 2009; Joseph Stiglitz 2010; William Tabb 2012). Some authors aptly call it the “crisis of neoliberal capitalism” (Kotz 2010)." I don't see why should water that down because of what someone read on some libertarian website about why they don't like the term ne0-liberal. TFD (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Drop the political tone and keep it civil. I am a Professor of Economics not some dude that gets his info from libertarian websites. Again, the issue we are discussing is whether the statemtn belongs to the first parragraph and you have not provided one single argument for this. As stated before, Whether it is true, or relevant, or both is meaningless if there is not substantial coverage in the body of the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. Dryfee (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dryfee:And why do you disagree with the proposal? We have the "mainstream economists" (IMF researchers and Stiglitz) you have been demanding be included. The sentence now summarizes discussions on inequality and financial crises mentioned in the body (and to be expanded upon in the future). And the content reflects the sources cited: all reliable, academic sources with the exception of the BI article which quotes Stiglitz. Given the sources cited, due weight should not be an issue. See WP:RSUW: "The reliability of a source can help you judge the weight to give the opinions of that source. The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion." To TFD: I would not consider my rewrite a watered down version, quite the opposite. It is just less specific for the purpose of finding consensus here with other editors who assert there is no direct mention (yet) of the 2007-2008 financial crisis in the body of the article. BTW, that is a great source you added above, and can and should be used to expand upon this issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin: First and most importantly, because there is no substantial coverage about this in the body of the article to warrant inclusion in the lead. Second, because there is no such thing as a neoliberal economic theory. Dryfee (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would rather (and I am working on a fully developed proposal of this) have the 1st paragraph cover a definition of the term as currently used (I think the current version is almost there). Then the second paragraph should cover the main use of the term in current (or recent) academic literature which would be a properly worded version of the following broad idea: "the term has been used to point to the problems generated by certain policies associated with neoliberalism, for example when the term is used to refer to fiscal policies (like corporate taxation and low government expenditure) some dudes argue that it has caused inequality (citations), other ideas associated with the term like low regulation have been pointed by other scholars to cause corporate oversight (citations), which has been associated with some financial crisis (like XX YY and ZZ) (citations) others argue that other aspects of neoliberalism like financial integration, while they were not the direct cause of these crisis, greatly amplified these episodes (like WW VV)." At the same time, we should expand on these ideas on the criticism section, to warrant inclusion in the lede. Then a third paragraph would cover the evolution of term (close to what the third and fourth paragraphs are now) and then some mention of the existing critiques for the use of the term (I am working on this as well). As you can imagine, the criticisms are about the broadness of the term. Discussing this will derail the current conversation, please lets leave this portion for laterDryfee (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That might be a good article for Wiktionary. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and articles are about topics not words and their different meanings. "Disambiguation" explains how it applies. If you want to create an article about how an Italian economist once used the term "neo-liberal" to describe another economist, then you can create a separate article about it. The topic of this article is about the social, political and economic paradigm that emerged from the 1970s and has influenced policy of governments of all stripes. The term "Mars" by the way can have more than one meaning. We do not devote most of the lead to articles about the planet or the God railing against the ambiguity of the English language. TFD (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: The editor who performed the closure was blocked for sockpuppetry. If the closure needs a review, you may go to WP:administrators' noticeboard --George Ho (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Neoliberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story067/en/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ggdc.net/Maddison/Historical_Statistics/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120803004406/www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/86/cameron.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/86/cameron.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110909175528/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/2008-09/Chron_Superannuation.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/2008-09/Chron_Superannuation.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/sources_document13.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151010112131/http://www.loicwacquant.net/assets/Papers/MARGINALITYETHNICITYPENALITY-Article-ERS.pdf to http://www.loicwacquant.net/assets/Papers/MARGINALITYETHNICITYPENALITY-Article-ERS.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030602210442/http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/Easterly_neoliberal.html to http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TotW/Easterly_neoliberal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821085549/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/monetar.htm to http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/monetar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neoliberalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015103047/http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS255917+25-Jan-2008+BW20080125 to https://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS255917+25-Jan-2008+BW20080125
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161231122651/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/video/harcourt-neoliberal-penality to http://www.law.uchicago.edu/video/harcourt-neoliberal-penality

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad comparison with democracy

I deleted following, i assume formaly correctly cited, sentence today [1]: As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other contested concepts, including democracy.

Because C.J. Griffin undid my deletion i assume this should be discussed here. To begin with, this statement has at best pure academic value. It thematizes contested concepts in its core, not the actual lemma Neoliberalism.

Additionally it is plain wrong or atleast very missleading since most of today's worldwide economies are classified as coordinated market economies so the implication of a similar success and spread of liberal market economy, like democracy which seems a real winning champion on our globe, is plain wrong. On top liberal markets are frequently cited as "in deep conflict" with democracy while the coordinated market system is exactly the adaptation of capitalism to democracy (see Third Way). This alone already proves the point, the deleted sentence tried to make, as very missleading. It does not share many atributes (which is a total weaselword phrase on top) with democracy besices at best some academic tag called "contested concept" you could aswell stick on any of the 1001 "inventions" of the Milk industry. How about comparing Neoliberalism with probiotic Yogurt? What would be the point of that besides the theory of both at times being very successfull contested concepts that spread around the globe? --Kharon (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, you're introducing concepts not included in the article (i.e., coordinated market economies), and have provided no sources for the claims you asserted. The sentence you deleted (and the citation which followed the statement, which includes a quote to help explain exactly what the source is trying to say with this) was not making the case that the two operate in tandem (of course they are "in deep conflict", as neoliberalism fuels inequality and essentially oligarchy, but I digress...), but as both are global concepts put into practice they are similar in that, 1) they are geopolitically distinct in some respects (think of it this way, as both neoliberalism and democracy are adopted by different cultures and polity around the world, both will undergo changes to fit these societies, even though in theory they will retain core ideas), and 2) prone to modification over time. This is, I believe, partly why neoliberalism is such a hotly disputed concept, even though at its core neoliberalism is about the liberation of, and domination by, capital. I would argue that the so-called coordinated market economies you speak of have been modified by neoliberal ideas thanks to globalization, especially the ruthless austerity implemented throughout much of Europe in recent years (e.g., Sweden's explosion of inequality in the last decade is largely attributable to the adoption of neoliberal policies pertaining to austerity and privatization; Sweden is considered a "CME"). This is happening as I type this. Look at what the president of France just did: Macron’s Gift to the Rich.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinated Market systems, which are not based on Liberalism but on Corporatism, predate any idea of Neoliberalism. So about the idea of global adoption of neoliberalism - well the neoliberals sure tried to "sell" their ideas to any- and everone.

Did you know for example the Constitution of Europe, the Treaty of Lisbon sets the binding goal to establish „a highly competitive social market economy“[2] in every member state? Do I assume correctly that you agree to clearly distinct "social market economy" from Neoliberalism? In that case you also agree that Neoliberalism did not spread in the EU. The only exeption is the "anglo-saxon neoliberalism" in the UK. But then thanks to BREXIT, there isnt even an exeption to the rule in EU anymore.

Its really an academic fairy tale!

Neoliberalism's only spread worldwide was into academical and political press. Mainly because the many Billionair-funded "research Institutes" never actually research much but instead massively flood the academic press with concept papers in favor of Liberalism and Libertarism.

Therefor it is missleading to compare Neoliberalism to Democracy. Democracy really spread almost everywhere. Even China claims to be one, but that is obviously not a good example.

I gave you cited proof for 27 states not based in Neoliberalism. Easily more if needed. Can you give me proof of atleast 27 states based on Neoliberalism? --Kharon (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Here we let the sources do the talking, and what many sources assert is that neoliberalism is not confined to a few nations in the West, but has spread globally; it has been the backbone of globalized capitalism since the 1970s. The IMF and the World Bank have been pushing neoliberal "structural adjustment" policies on countries on nearly every continent. David Harvey elaborates on this phenomenon in his 2005 book, "A Brief History of Neoliberalism", cited in the article myriad times:

"There has everywhere been an emphatic turn towards neo-liberalism in political-economic practices and thinking since the 1970s. Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state from many areas of social provision have been all too common. Almost all states, from those newly minted after the collapse of the Soviet Union to old-style social democracies and welfare states such as New Zealand and Sweden have embraced, sometimes voluntarily and in other instances in response to coercive pressures, some version of neo-liberal theory and adjusted at least some policies and practices accordingly."(p.3)

It certainly appears to be the case that neoliberalism, in theory and practice, is as ubiquitous as democratic ideals in theory and practice, as the sources tell us.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

But this is all weaselword statements and artificial tags. "Embraced [...] some version of". Do you realize you can also find an equal "flood" of citations about communism spreading in the USA and everywhere else? Deregulation, privatization, and withdrawal of the state is no proof of an "adaption of neoliberalism" since any economy, even authoritarian one party systems have to manage, and thus sometimes change, a balance between state and private which Aristotle already wrote about. Just because Neoliberalism "embraces" deregulation doesnt give it any "copyright" as if Neoliberalism had invented deregulation and even worse to then argue "where deregulation, there Neoliberalism" is just Circular reasoning the wrong even wronger. Come on, please give me something better than citing hollow weasel phrased propaganda from Cato institute and alike. --Kharon (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Addition of Neoliberal populism section

An identical copy of this substantial new section has just been placed in at least 5 articles. I think that this is good work that needs to be placed somewhere but placing 5 identical copies in 5 articles seems like a bad idea. Probably we should revert and ask them to just put it it in the most relevant article. BTW I plan to do the same with this post in all of those articles.  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree this section should be removed. Much of it is unsourced anyway.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition of material on protest against globalization by Lee Kyung-hae

This material has been put in at least three times, two being restorations after removal. After 1 or 2 it should have been discussed before re-adding. IMO it's undue weight especially when degree of relevance is considered. Starting with the subject Neoliberalism, then saying that globalization relates to that, and then that protests against globalization relate to that, and then a pretty substantial section (include talking points via a quote) on this particul,ar protest. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's very notable and therefore WP:DUE given the coverage of this incident and how it related to neoliberal globalization in contemporary scholarship. Here is a look at what comes up in Google Scholar when the search terms are "Lee Kyung-hae" and "neoliberalism" [3]. I am perplexed by the opposition to including this in the article given its coverage in scholarship.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. Also there is a sort of circular logic in your search.....seeing if they are commonly connected by a search which returns only those where they are connected. That said, the process concern which I noted at the beginning of my post aside, I won't be upset if the material stays. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with north here. It has no place in a summary article. Especially with the giant pull quote. The whole criticism section is a classic WP:COATRACK where people are hanging their favorite criticisms. There is no summary, it is just a laundry list of items. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We aren't just talking about a handful of articles here; there are more than just a few scholarly writings where this individual and his actions are directly connected to the globalization of neoliberal capitalism. This search was posted here to demonstrate that the subject matter as it exists in the article is notable. That being said, I did remove the "protest" sub-section and re-inserted it into the much larger political opposition section. I figured this would resolve the issue because having its own section does indeed qualify as WP:UNDUE. EDIT: I would vehemently oppose the removal of the entire criticism section as it contains myriad scholarly citations and discussions on the subject of neoliberalism. All of the critiques and criticisms pertain directly to neoliberalism, whether it is rising worker precarity, mass incarceration, falling living standards in the former Eastern bloc or Western intervention in the Global South. No "rack" is being obscured by any "coats", as these are absolutely notable criticisms of neoliberalism, and the numerous academic citations confirm this. I have no objections with removing the quote if that resolves the issue. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The incident is frequently mentioned in books about neo-liberalism, so it should be mentioned. I think though the entry should be no more than a sentence and block quotes are excessive. TFD (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "In popular culture" section

Goonsbee and the IP user 2001:7d0:87d8:a080:956:a171:9da:d3cc have several times attempted to remove the "In popular culture" section, with the edit summaries "stupid", "not relevant", and "r/neoliberal is not a relevant subreddit in popular culture". I opined that these edit summaries were inadequate reason to remove a large amount of sourced text, and advised Goonsbee to discuss the matter here.

My personal opinion is that Goonsbee is substantively correct. There are three subsections affected: "Reddit", "Twitter", and "Podcast"; I don't believe that any of them add much to the article. I am not a fan of "In popular culture" in general, though, so my prejudices are showing. Would anyone else care to venture an opinion? NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in editing this page, but for what it's worth, I agree with you. The "Twitter" and "Podcast" sections in particular should be deleted right away because the sources are all primary - the Twitter section only cites the Twitter account and the Pocast section cites the Stitcher, Kickstarter, and Patreon. I suppose a case could maybe be made for keeping the "Reddit" section - at least it has some better sources - but I don't actually think it adds anything to the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think they should be removed because they are relatively insignificant to the overall topic, in fact relatively insignificant overall. TFD (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The section should be deleted as it is basically superfluous clutter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the whole section should be deleted. Looks like very small scale current web site stuff. North8000 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That said, I think that current practice, meaning, and usage in everyday life is under-covered in most political philosophy articles. This material is an example of that, but covers individual instances which are too minor. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Clearly trivial Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the term has mostly become "out of fashion". Luckily all shifted to a much more "to the point" Debate theme about Inequality, thanks to our dear Mr. Thomas Piketty.

No, sorry NewEnglandYankee. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Kharon (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Kharon, I'm not sure what you meant by that with respect to the current questions, but an article can certainly be about a term. North8000 (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The subreddit, Twitter page, and podcast aren't disparate things. They're all part of an organization called the Neoliberal Project. Qzekrom (she/they • talk) 05:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of references to New Labour

Moving this discussion from CJ Griffin's personal page: Hi CJ Griffin, Tony Blair, who created New Labour, was also credited as one of the main adopters of the [Third Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way] movement: "Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism". The Third Way, by definition was neither left nor right, neither free-market nor socialist. It is impossible simultaneously for New Labour to be critisized by neoliberals for not being neoliberal ("Third Way has been criticised by certain conservatives, liberals and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism"), and to be neoliberal. Let me give some actual New Labour polices that demonstrate my point:

• More schools & hospitals built than for a generation with commensurate drops in illiteracy and waiting*lists. 
• Doubled funding per pupil
• 36,000 extra teachers & 274,000 more teaching assistants
• 85,000 more nurses
• Cancer deaths down by 50,000
• 14,000 more police & 21% criminal-justice spending helped cut crime by 35%
• Child poverty halved (600,000 fewer)
• Increased paid holiday to 24 days
• Introduced two weeks paid paternity leave
• Free TV licences & introduction of winter fuel payments to pensioners
• Pensioner poverty reduced by one million
• Introduced minimum wage 
• Sure Start scheme (2,200 childcare, early education, health and family support centres)
• Overseas aid doubled & wrote off debt for dozens of poor nations
• Introduced GiftAid scheme
• Introduced Tax credits for the low-paid
• Brought Human Rights act into UK law
• 26% increase in child benefit

These are not free-market, neoliberal policies, nor were New Labour. Please cite factual counter-evidence or concede that your citation is baseless conjecture and does not belong in the Neoliberal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightflood (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say, and I have cited several on the article in question, all academic and reliable. You have posted nothing but a bunch of statistics with no source, and a link to the Wiki page on the Third Way (a neoliberal variant of the post Cold War center-left which places more emphasis on the market than the state, and many sources in that article characterize it as such). I even added to the text that "some scholars" are saying this, so as not to use Wikipedia's voice, but that wasn't enough to stop your edit warring. In fact, MANY scholars consider the Third Way, and Third Way politicians like New Democrat Clinton and Blair, as neoliberal, just a more tepid version than the neoliberals of the right like Thatcher and Reagan. Bottom line is that you have provided no justification for the deletion of reliably sourced material, other than you personally disagree with it. My personal talk page is not the place for this discussion. Take it to the Neoliberalism talk page. EDIT: you have also violated WP:3RR with your constant edit warring and could be blocked from editing. I suggest you revert your last edit.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Another source, Stuart Hall, elaborates on just what makes New Labour "neoliberal" in spite of the policies you list above (there are still many others):

"New Labour did initiate very important social reforms, including the minimum wage, shorter waiting times, better health targets, attempts to reduce child poverty, the doubling of student numbers and (rather reluctantly) some equality and human rights legislation. But triangulation was its life-blood, its leading tendency. There was a continuous tension between a strident, Fabian, Benthamite tendency to regulate and manage and the ideology of the market, with its pressure for market access to areas of public life from which it had hitherto been excluded. Regulation was often the site of a struggle to resolve the contradiction between an enhanced role for the private sector and the need to demonstrate positive outcomes. But there was a strong impulse towards getting rid of the excrescences of the ‘nanny state’, in areas such as planning and health and safety regulations, and towards ‘flexibility’ in labour markets.

What was distinctively neoliberal about New Labour’s strategies? The private funding of New Labour’s flagship achievements via the Public Finance Initiative left future generations in hock for thirty years to re-pay the debt at exorbitant interest rates. Yet ‘public-private partnership’ became a required condition of all public contracts. Contracting out, competitive tendering and ‘contestability’ opened up the state to capital. Private contractors were better placed to cut costs and shed staff, even at the expense of service quality. The rising archipelago of private companies providing public services for profit was spectacular. Consultants floated in and out to ‘educate’ the public sphere in the ways of corporate business. Senior public servants joined the Boards of their private suppliers through ‘the revolving door’. Emptied out from inside, the ethos of public service underwent an irreversible ‘culture change’. The habits and assumptions of the private sector became embedded in the state.

Neoliberal discourse promoted two discursive figures - the ‘taxpayer’ (hard- working man, over-taxed to fund the welfare ‘scrounger’) and the ‘customer’ (fortunate housewife, ‘free’ to exercise limited choice in the market-place, for whom the ‘choice agenda’ and personalised delivery were specifically designed). No-one ever thinks either could also be a citizen who needs or relies on public services."

--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You cite opinions, I cite facts. "Reliable sources" who fail to cite real-world examples\facts are not reliable. I cite actual Labour policies that were anti-free-market, anti-neoliberal. You cite what exactly? The use of the word "triangulation" by an academic? Triangulation means finding compromise, neither once side or the other. Neither free-market (neoliberal), nor socialist in this case. By definition New Labour's triangulation cannot be laissez faire free-market. The existence of markets ("market access to areas of public life") doesn't constitute neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is a pro-market ideology that values them at the expense of all else ("there's no such thing as society" - Thatcher). I think you are confusing the very existence of capitalism & markets with neoliberalism. They aren't the same thing. Scandinavian countries are capitalist, but not neoliberal. They have markets in many areas of their economy, but are not neoliberal. Regulating markets such that the value of society is upheld is anti-neoliberal.

"‘Public-private partnership’ became a required condition of all public contracts." The clue is in the name. They cannot be neoliberal. Cannot be extreme free-market & pro-privatisation, because ultimately they were publically funded contracts. Publically funded projects cannot, by definition, be neoliberal. Introducing some market aspects to the healthcare system is not a free-market, laissez faire policy. If New Labour strove to privatise the NHS, and let the market get on with running healthcare completely, such as in the USA, you would have a case. New Labour did not. They continued the policy of free, publically-funded healthcare. Not neoliberal. (I would agree that PPI schemes ultimately presented poor value to the public, but this isn't relevent to this topic. Overall, outcomes matter: Labour's health policies led to massive reductions in waiting lists and cancer deaths, etc).

"New Labour did initiate very important social reforms, including...". Have you ever seen Monty Python movie The Life of Brian? There was a scene in which the anti-Roman terrorist group tries to justify why they hate the Romans so much that resonates. "REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? XERXES: Brought peace?"

"Senior public servants joined the Boards of their private suppliers through ‘the revolving door’." Again, I agree this is an iniquity, but you digress. Neoliberal means extreme free-market. The fact that large numbers of healthcare & other public servants exist at all is, by definition, non-neoliberal. A revolving door between public and private sectors means a public sector exists. Heyek, Thatcher et al strove to remove public servents completely. Blair did not.

I return to my central point, which you fail to even attempt to counter. To be neoliberal requires "reductions in government spending", New Labour significantly increased public spending. Hence they cannot be neoliberal. Blair was not the same as Hayek, Friedman, Reagan and Thatcher. He just wasn't. "Third Way politicians like New Democrat Clinton and Blair, as neoliberal, just a more tepid version". You cannot have tepid neoliberalism, just like you cannot have tepid boiling water. Neoliberalism is laissez faire free-market. If it isn't free-market, it isn't neoliberal. The existence of markets does not prove the existence of the neoliberalism economic philosophy. Not all forms of capitalism are neoliberal.

"No justification for the deletion of reliably sourced material". Nonsense. I have posted facts (and have added citations as you requested), objective truth in the form of actual New Labour policies and outcomes. You have posted unsubstantiated opinions. That those opinions eminated from some people who work in academia does not make them intrinsically worthy without factual justification. Cite facts, not opinions, or stop edit warring.

How about you start citing reliable sources that actually pertain to the subject at hand and stop removing sourced material because you don't like it. Claiming that the peer-reviewed scholarship included in the article constitutes "unsubstantiated opinions" is utter nonsense. What you have posed above are largely your own personal opinions of what you think neoliberalism is, when the article itself and sources within assert it is far more complex and complicated than you make it out to be. The sources you cite say nothing about New Labor's relation to neoliberalism, and basically just confirm some of the stats you post above, stats which don't really prove much of anything given even the passage I quoted acknowledges some of these policies existed. What Hall is saying, along with other scholars cited, is that New Labor's policies strongly favored the private sector and market forces, as they did not seek to reverse the established neoliberal consensus, just work within its framework, much like the New Democrats in the US with their more progressive neoliberalism. To quote the source, political philosopher Nancy Fraser: "Progressive neoliberalism developed in the United States over the last three decades and was ratified with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Clinton was the principal engineer and standard-bearer of the 'New Democrats,' the U.S. equivalent of Tony Blair’s 'New Labor.'" Both made sure there were few impediments to unfettered free trade and practically no constraints placed on finance capital, and both allowed capital to creep into the public sector, undermining public services by attaching a profit motive to them. The most egregious examples of this in the US under the New Democrats include the passage of NAFTA, the expansion of the prison system and the rise of punitive "workfare", the increased privatization of prison facilities, and the gutting of financial regulations towards the end of Clinton's term which helped pave the way for financial crises years later.

You have been reverted by numerous editors on this issue. You are the one who is edit warring. You are the one who has violated WP:3RR here and refused to self-revert when asked to, which usually results in a block. And clearly have not reached consensus for the removal of this material, per WP:BRD.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightflood, you seem to be arguing that the disputed material either explicitly or implicitly (by mere presence in the article) says "New Labour is neoliberal", and that such is the reason for removal. I really don't see that in the disputed material. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

North8000, "Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton, and Blair all adopted broadly similar neoliberal beliefs". Did you miss this? Reagan & Thatcher, yes, they were self-confessed and by their policies anti-society, pro laissez-faire free-market. I haven't analysed Clinton, but have shown by cited facts, not someone's opinion, why conflating Blair is unfair. CJ Griffin is attempting to re-define neoliberalism as a spectrum that includes social democracy. There is no such thing as "tepid neoliberalism". What CJ Griffin and I are discussing already has a name: Third Way or social democracy and has no place in this article. It's like trying to redefine Communism to include democratic socialists. Other than to right-wing shock-jocks, it's unfair to conflate Bernie Sanders with Joseph Stalin and describe him as a "tepid communist". This is polemic and has no place in an encylopaedia. To do so is to blur neoliberalism into meaninglessness. Blair increased spending and was anti-austerity, hence by the definition in the first para of this article, has no place here. As a compromise, and because I am not an academic and need to retain my job rather than spend more time on this, I will accept the compromise of removing this sentance because by Blair's actual policies, what he achieved through public spending, he does not belong in the company of Reagan and Thatcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightflood (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The point of my post was only to say that the contested text is IMO a narrowly written sentence (basically saying that these people adopted some beliefs that are somewhat neoliberal) rather than asserting the broader statement that you see in there. I could be wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote from Lightflood: "CJ Griffin is attempting to re-define neoliberalism as a spectrum that includes social democracy." Pfft! I am not re-defining anything; there is literally no shortage of writing within scholarship and the media on the paradigm shift from Keynesianism to neoliberalism in a globalized capitalist world, and how center-left "third way" governments, while purportedly "social democratic", continued neoliberal policies as a result of this, and did not reverse course, being constrained by it. While the New Democrats in the US and New Labour in Britain are good examples of this, and mentioned throughout the sourcing provided (and I have provided a plethora of reliable sources in the article and the talk page by this point), the collapse of PASOK in Greece, a popular social democratic party which imposed brutal austerity policies on the population following the Great Recession, is a poignant example of how neoliberalism not only destroyed the Keynesian consensus but also destroyed social democracy as we know it, giving the Western world this "third way" centrism and 'New' Social Democracy (as one linked source above puts it) which capitulates to capitalist domination in the era of globalization, in effect bowing to Margaret Thatcher's dictum "TINA" ("There Is No Alternative"). Other editors have also added content from reliable sources expanding on this. You on the other hand have failed to provide any sources buttressing your position and are merely stating your own subjective opinions on the matter.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"You on the other hand have failed to provide any sources buttressing your position and are merely stating your own subjective opinions on the matter" - Are you actually ignorant or just pretending? What is my sourced bullet list above plus links to sourced empirical statistics showing Blair's New Labour increased spending? Plucked from my wild opinions? "continued neoliberal policies". Nonsense. This is actually all very simple. The reason New Labour should have no place in this article can be summarised in four words:- NEW LABOUR INCREASED SPENDING. Look at 1997 to 2010. Then look again in case you don't believe your eyes. Then re-read the first para of this article that describes neoliberalism as pro-austerity, pro "reductions in government spending". Therefore Blair belongs alongside Thatcher and Reagan, who minimised the size of the state no more the Bernie Sanders belongs alongside Stalin, who maximised the size of the state, in the Communism article. You keep mentioning "reliable sources" that offer no counter to this simple truth that contradicts the central meaning of neoliberalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightflood (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I side with C.J. Griffin on this issue. It is indisputable that New Labour has been associated with neoliberalism in both academic literature and the popular press and hence should be included in this page. Lightflood, what you are doing is pointing to specific New Labour policies that would generally not be considered neoliberal and using them to argue that in your opinion New Labour should not be associated with neoliberalism. But numerous academics and journalists have pointed to other New Labour policies and associated New Labour with neoliberalism. Wikipedia is not a place for original thought—if New Labour has been associated with neoliberalism in reliable sources (it has, often by major figures like Nancy Fraser, as C.J. Griffin noted) then regardless of your personal opinion it should be included.

As it currently stands there is greater support for keeping the reference to New Labour so Lightflood kindly stop your edit warring. I would also advise you to remain respectful on this talk page, your comment asking C.J. Griffin "Are you actually ignorant or just pretending" is unproductive and comes close to insult.

--Jaydavidmartin (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Jaydavidmartin, journalists (in left-leaning broadsheets) are saying the exact opposite of what you claim. Mine is not an "original thought". If New Labour, who increased spending and were anti-austerity are Neoliberal, and Neoliberal means pro-austerity and spending reduction, then what in the world does Neoliberal mean? Saying black is white is not "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightflood (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Well neoliberalism is a bs term which everybody throws to its political opponents to descredit them, maybe because it has the prefix neo in front of it and reminds neo-nazism. In my country the center-left was accusing the center-right as neoliberal, the center-right was accusing the center-left as neoliberal and the Left was accusing everybody as neoliberal until it became government and then the term was thrown to it back again :P In the future historians and scholars will see that fact and also that there were almost no people self-identified as such and will fix I hope wikipedia. Till then Blair, Clinton etc go into the basket of neoliberalism as there are plenty of retarded, sorry I mean reliable sources of the previous century that categorize them as neoliberals. I bet someone somewhere will have accused or included a Communist party as neoliberal. --DagonAmigaOS (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph for deletion in Economic and political freedom

I think this paragraph, located in the Economic and political freedom section of Political policy aspects, should probably be deleted.

In a response to critics he claims accuse him of endorsing "the neoliberalization of academic life," Stanley Fish argues that academics should not engage in civic or democratic action in their role as academics. Fish claims academic freedom applies only within the university and the classroom, which are not the appropriate venues for taking stands on social or political issues. "I don’t foreclose the possibility [of academics engaging in civic or political action]; I just want to locate it outside the university and the classroom." Fish claims critics of the neoliberal university like David Harvey view such separation of classroom, society, and state as the university and academics giving up their former roles as crucial players in the public sphere and adopting more instrumental, commercial, and practical roles characteristic of neoliberalism.[199] Fish arguing that academic responsibility only applies in an academic sphere neatly separated from the public, civic, and private spheres echoes the Friedman doctrine, Milton Friedman's argument that corporate social responsibility only applies in a private sphere neatly separated from the public and civic spheres.

It clearly does not belong under Economic and political freedom, as it has little to do with this. No other section seems a suitable candidate for it either. Frankly, it is an entire paragraph about a specific academics views on the university; I don't think it is notable enough to merit inclusion in this page. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't received any responses so I've gone ahead and deleted it. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Milton friedman y richard nixon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)