Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I never thought of the parallels, but that is true. Also,

The neolibs get around this with the unstated setting of "efficiency" as the ultimate goal.

...which leads to other understated or even hidden goals of dismantling percieved inefficiences such as "entitlement" programs.

by andrethegiant on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 10:45:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To further that parallel: the market, like natural selection, works towards a certain direction in a given environment. Thus even in the stable regime the marketistas erroneously assume all free markets reside in, that glorious 'efficiency' is the measure of something relative: the development of the most efficient production under the given conditions. Yet these conditions include resource availability, geography (limits on transportation), social norms, prevailing ideologies and religions, laws, and yes: regulations...

My favourite example for the neolib-dogma-busting practice of using the markets with a goal, that is to set the rules with the aim of getting efficient solutions in a pre-set desired direction, is a feed-in law: by fixing guaranteed purchase prices for regenerative energies, manufacturers of the latter can have a boom market of their own, large enough for the manufacturers to accumulate enough funds for competition by further development.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 01:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Neo-liberals also "forget" that, according to Walras (and also in the Arrow-Debreu model), a condition for the existence of a market equilibrium is the "survival assumption" i.e. the fact that agents do not need to exchange to survive, even their workforce.

"Dieu se rit des hommes qui se plaignent des conséquences alors qu'ils en chérissent les causes" Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet
by Melanchthon on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 05:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series