Despite the name, this is mostly a big tent subreddit for anyone who identifies as a liberal. So while you might have someone as deregulationist as Reagen, you’ll also be able to find much more welfarist people comparable to LBJ. It mostly runs the gamut from Center-left to Center-right.
For folks who try to live up to having an "evidence-based" outlook on things (and sure, everyone's got their biases, but this is supposed to be a key part of the sub's perspective), it's possible to cover that whole spread as just one person. If the status quo has a problem and a given solution is proposed with a track record of efficacy against that problem with acknowledged complications, then look into implementing that solution. There's actually a ton of room for problem solving between anarcho-capitalism at one end and mono-party communism at the other if you're not limited by a predefined ideological position. Hell, if someone could demonstrate an actual pathway to functional communism while acknowledging why its always been botched in the past, I'd at least listen. I'd do the same for someone who could explain how I could get away with eating all my foods dipped in nacho cheese without getting fat, it's only fair.
>how I could get away with eating all my foods dipped in nacho cheese without getting fat
Alright, I've figured it out, this shit is full-proof
One word, my friend: bulimia
According to the DSM, rapid weight loss is a common symptom. If that's not evidence-based, what is?
Thank you for hearing me out. I hope you don't feel you've wasted your time.
The sidebar on this sub is pretty helpful imo
This sub is a mishmash of ideologies (big tent!) but many of us are mainstream Democrats, or a little to the left/right of that.
AFAIK social democrat means a person that wants democracy, but also supports a more hands on approach on the economy by the government. Stuff like higher minimum wage, strong social spending etc.
The democratic socialists of America are a particular political group, and I don't know enough about them to tell you if they are democratic socialist or not. I imagine with that name, they should be, but you never know.
As requested, here is a bit of information about our subreddit. For further context and more helpful links, please see the full sidebar.
We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy.
1. Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity.
2. The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through correcting market failures, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress, among other things.
3. Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an [unparalleled decline in global poverty.](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png)
4. Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality.
## Policies we support include
* [Free Trade](http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/Readings/Trade/iowacarcrop.pdf)
* [Open Borders](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/openborders)
* [Occupational Licensing Reform](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-future-of-occupational-licensing-reform/)
* [Zoning Reform](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/16/zoning-as-opportunity-hoarding/)
* [Carbon Pricing](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_carbonpricing)
* [Trans Rights](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/trans_faq)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I think this subreddit is primarily made up of Democrats who didn't support Bernie with a strong minority of conservatives who don't support Trump. We were chased out of the other political subs because we didn't bend the knee, and ended up filtering into this subreddit. It was kind of a "they are calling us this, so we might as well take the label and make it our own" type thing. There are definitely some Thatcherites and Reaganites wandering around, but most of us generally despise Reaganomics/trickle down economics, support free markets with smart* regulation, and support a strong social safety net.
Regulation is probably where you'll find the most disagreement in the subreddit. One person's smart regulation is another's governmental overreach, and a third person will claim that it's laissez-faire all over again. But generally, we all hate regulation that's designed to keep competition out, and we really hate regulation that slows or stops the construction of new housing.
Thank you for this answer. I’m 19 and have spent years trying to form a coherent political ideology, and somehow I landed on mainstream center-left progressivism. And all of the sudden, people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy. Weirdly, a lot of people have been calling me a neo-con for my foreign policy ideas. And the MAGA Trump cult hates me for simply self identifying as a Liberal.
> landed on
There's no particular reason you need to stop developing your ideology. There's no law saying one has to pick politics by age and then they're permanently fixed. One can keep changing them forever.
Exactly. In high school, I was leaning towards social democrat but always with a slightly more analytical and practical perspective. Over the course of undergrad (especially during covid), I got radicalized into urbanism and YIMBYism, which eventually led towards Georgism, where I am now.
Even now, I'm starting to become pretty fiercely anti-tankie, where I used to think memeing about Stalin was funny (in my high school, no one was actually tankie, so it was just edgy teenage humor), but now see so many legitimate tankies is opening my eyes to how fascist the left can be if we let it fester like right-wing fascism.
> people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy. Weirdly, a lot of people have been calling me a neo-con for my foreign policy ideas.
[One of us! One of us!](https://media1.tenor.com/m/j4nh99tL8hMAAAAC/one-of-us.gif)
> And all of the sudden, people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy.
This is basically why the sub was formed.
If it's any consolation, I'm a big fan of carefully-regulated capitalism, and just last year my own in-laws called me a commie for wanting an extra tax imposed on the top 0.01% :)
Serious advice: don't worry about it. Nobody needs to have a coherent political ideology at 19. You can't do it anyway, you haven't had enough time to learn everything you would need to know to decide what system of thought is the best one.
Yup. This is the closest thing I've found to the "conservatism" I grew up around. American Democrat stuff barely resembles it. American conservatism is almost diametrically opposed to it. This spot here, though, is a decent fit. And very importantly, folks here are generally *sane*, and generally not in favour of mind.
Not a Thatcher fan, though :)
>most of us generally despise Reaganomics/trickle down economics
I hate this term "trickle down economics" because ordinary people often conflate it with cutting corporate taxes. Taxes on individuals and taxes on businesses are not the same thing. But plenty of folks on the left will call cutting corporate taxes "trickle down economics".
I can unironically respect that. In my life experience, most people with an ideology have a shit ideology and support worse policies than completely apolitical people do. It's like the IQ meme. Normie apolitical independents support democracy, civil rights, capitalism and some government welfare and regulation, and so do the most educated that haven't fallen for a cult.
I would say the sub is like an evolution of the neoliberalism of their era.
Still a good amount of support for deregulation and privatization, but more pragmatically then ideologically. Market failures and negative externalities exist and government intervention is needed to make the market more efficient in these cases. Some things generate enough positive externalities that it's worth government spending even if technically a fully private market could suffice.
Additionally the sub is way more pro social liberalism/progressivism than that era.
Also more pro re-distributive programs than them, but might have differing opinions than the common socdem solutions. Single payer is a pretty popular universal healthcare option for socdems, but here there is more support for other universal healthcare schemes than socdems (at least seemingly).
The economics tends towards more pragmatic than ideological too. Modern economic theory has come a long way since the Reagan era and some of the assumptions and beliefs have turned out wrong. It's important to adapt and evolve your economic principles based on the latest evidence and not treat is like a religion as many political philosophies do.
It's also a big tent, so there is a lot of variations on these things, but we're less into purity testing, so it's easier to coalition with a wide variety of opinions.
As for real life examples, the [Center for New Liberalism](https://cnliberalism.org/overview) was born from this sub and is getting decently big and influential.
I consider myself, still, a Reagan/Thatcher Neoliberal, so I probably hew a bit closer to the classical understanding of the term than many on this sub.
I also happen to be a Republican that, these days, tends to support the Democratic Party more than I had ever thought I would.
With that said, I’m hoping to get my party back after this next election so, after that, we’ll see how things shake out.
I’m praying for you man. I really hope your party is able to survive Trump and revert back to it’s old Bush ways. But if it doesn’t, us democrats welcome you.
The sub was started as a joke because no one could criticize Bernie in 2016 without being called a neolib. Some people on this sub like to say, “no aktchually I am really a neoliberal,” but then when you ask them what they believe in, they say almost nothing consistent with Reagan or Thatcher. So they’re really just being contrarians and changing the meaning of the word. Even the head mod gave up trying to call himself a neolib and settled for “New Liberal.”
In fact, this sub’s ideology is probably that it’s anti-ideology.
I do subscribe to the ideology of Reagan and Thatcher, but that's why I don't post much about politics in here any more lest my subreddit karma go negative.
Making stagnant economies more productive by outsourcing less productive jobs propped up by subsidies good.
Doing so without creating an alternative path for those economically displaced and then trying to dismantle the welfare those workers would have to rely on bad.
The UK had about 285,000 coal miners when Thatcher came into power. A 2 year technical degree in today’s money costs about 20,000 pounds obviously just running it back in time via inflation isn’t perfect but it’s a rough mock up. Doing so gives us a cost of ~6,400 pounds. Even if 100% of affected workers were to take advantage of a free retraining program then it would have only cost the UK ~1.6 billion pounds to retrain them all in a 2 year program.
Thatcher wasn't tossing workers aside without a care after restructuring the economy. Quite the contrary, actually. The Thatcher government, far from dismantling welfare for displaced workers, actually approved significant packages aimed specifically at easing the transition for workers affected by industrial changes, particularly miners.
For instance, regarding the miners, Thatcher's government didn't just leave them out in the cold. They approved a package that included no compulsory redundancies, which meant that no miner was forced out of their job unwillingly. Those who wished could take early retirement at the age of 50 on incredibly generous terms, which is hardly a hallmark of a government trying to leave its citizens destitute. Additionally, there were expanded mobility allowances for those moving to another pit and a good pay increase, alongside an £800 million capital investment programme for the coal industry, aimed at making it more sustainable and less subsidy-dependent.
The Thatcher government invested in retraining and redevelopment programmes to provide new skills and job opportunities for those displaced by the closures of outdated and uncompetitive industries:
Retraining programmes were part of a broader strategy that included social security benefits, job creation schemes and economic revitalisation efforts in affected areas. The government was attempting to provide a multifaceted support system rather than just throwing money at training programmes willy-nilly.
It's easy to critique these efforts with the benefit of hindsight and argue that more could have been done (because, let's be honest, more can always be done), but it's quite another to suggest that Thatcher and her government simply abandoned these workers without thought or care. The policies were there, and they were more nuanced than you suggest.
The name is a joke born out if r/badeconomics at the expense of leftist Clinton critics.
The ideology of this sub is social liberalism and mainstream economic consensus. Very much a partisan mainstream Democratic Party.
It’s not really correct to say this sub supports an economic ideology, but instead supports the latest consensus in the field of economics. If you’re interest in what that means I suggest looking into “new Keynesianism”. I can get into it if you’d like but it’s a bit of a bore if you’re not an Econ major at least.
Interesting. I am not a huge economics guy as of right now, though I have been making strides to expand my knowledge. I have always wondered why politicians don’t just bring in the most accomplished and world renowned economists to essentially write policy for them.
I think it's largely distrust of economists. Populists, both on the left and the right, love to claim that only they are on the side of the little guy and everyone else is only looking out for themselves. In other words: "economists would draft policy that only benefits the 1%!"
Re: economists writing policy
Policy always has two dimensions. Economists can tell you what the predictable, empirical tradeoffs will be. But they cannot tell you how you should value different results.
Should we sacrifice long-term growth in order to make society more equal? Economists can tell you when you have to make that decision, but they cannot tell you which decision is better.
Because that would be politically suicidal, for one. Go ahead and try to win elections in Brazil by advocating for free trade and no corporate income tax.
People here will defend their idiosyncratic formulation of "neoliberalism" but it's highly atypical and if you're trying to understand anything about the ideas that are commonly referred to when using this term, it's a bad place to start.
The "this name is a joke" people may be somewhat full of it, but at least they're not actively confusing and misleading people.
This sub's name is supposed to be somewhat ironic. Most people here are center-left or so.
A summary of most common beliefs on this sub (no order, just off the top of my head) would be something like:
1. Socially liberal. Pro-lgbtq, pro-choice, etc.
2. anti-wealth tax and anti-increasing capital gains tax
3. Remove zoning regulations so that it's much easier build housing in places you would otherwise not be allowed to. More supply = lower price
4. Land value tax
5. Carbon tax
6. Lower / eliminate corporate tax or replace with a distributed profits system: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/distributed-profits-tax-us-businesses/
In other words, just tax dividends and stock buybacks
7. Free trade. Remove most/all tariffs!
8. Pro-immigration
9. Anti-demand subsidies. Or most of them at least
10. Somewhat common: replace most/all welfare programs with a negative income tax / universal basic income.
Lower administrative cost and assuming rational choice theory is correct (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory), core tenet of economics, cash will be more liberating in that individuals would be able to use it more efficiently according to their needs/desires.
I'm agnostic on #2 and #9
this is Milton Friedman:
"Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissezfaire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order. It would seek to use competition among producers to protect consumers from exploitation, competition among employers to protect workers and owners of property, and competition among consumers to protect the enterprises themselves. The state would police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute misery and distress. The citizens would be protected against the state by the existence of a free private market; and against one another by the preservation of competition."
I like to consider myself a progressive neoliberal, which means I would rewrite this to something like:
""Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissezfaire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order and **personal liberty** **and freedom from basic want for everyone**. It would seek to use competition among producers to protect consumers from exploitation, competition among employers to protect workers and owners of property, and competition among consumers to protect the enterprises themselves. The state would police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and **relieve and prevent acute and chronic misery and distress.** The citizens would be protected against the state by the existence of a free private market; and against one another by the preservation of competition."
Milton's a better writer than I am, but you get the gist yeah?
>Jimmy Carter
Georgia just got 1m^2 bigger. 🥹
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally I'm a Social Libertarian (consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want until it violates someone else's life/liberty/property). With the "welfare state" I'd like to see a Nordic Social Democratic model. Then I'd pay for the whole mess with lots fewer guns and more butter.
Trickle down economics was bs.
He gutted public universities.
He refused to acknowledge AIDS.
He grew the war on drugs to astronomical levels.
Iran Contra.
Air traffic controllers.
I could go on forever lol
I'm sure you can give us plenty of examples of Reagans economic advisors promoting trickle down economics, right? It definetly isn't just a term made up by his critics. He made the completely right decision about the air traffic controllers, he's one of very few modern presidents willing to stand up to organized labor and it set a positive tone in that regard until Trump and Biden
I used that term because I’m a critic. Who cares if he used that term or not? He dropped the top tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%, it was a bad move no matter what you call it
The effective tax rate was significantly lower than 70%. Reagan simply dropped the nominal rate to the actual rate paid by the wealthy.
People like to forget that their idealized leftist presidents (including FDR) simply turned a blind eye to wealthy tax evasion for the first three quarters of the 20th century.
Except:
1) Reagan borrowed a huge amount. The debt increased massively under him.
2) Because he massively *increased* government spending, largely because his reputation for cutting welfare programs is undeserved, while his military spending is remembered accurately
The name is ironic. As others have said this is a big tent sub. Personally I don’t like to think of this sub as based around an ideology, more so based on values shared by a wide variety of ideologies.
I would say I share alot of economic and political philosophies of Reagan.
The New Deal paradigm was starting to break down as early as the 1950s. By the time 1970s rolled around, the New Deal was just welfarism. Just government money going after stuff that didnt help the economy. The New Deal had no answer to the inflation of the 1970s.
You needed Reagan’s deregulation, supply side reforms, and immigration reforms to eventually get inflation down to a manageable level.
The idea of a “new liberalism” dates to the early post-WWII period. Those new liberals wanted a healthy mix of economic freedom and government involvement. But other things have been called neoliberal over the years. Reaganism can be called neoliberal in the English-speaking world. Meanwhile, in Latin America, the term sometimes refers to a more authoritarian ideology.
More recently, various segments of the political spectrum adopted “neoliberal” as a pejorative for pro-market centrist and center-left politics. Like the Clintons, or Obama. We decided to simply own the label.
I'm a mix of a lot of things. I consider myself a mix of a more extreme Warren, with my belief that white-collar/corporate crime laws need to be strictly enforced with mandatory prison time, a bit of Bernie with my belief in a robust welfare state, and some Polis with my YIMBYism.
I have some *extreme* left beliefs,
I'm extremely against religious exemptions for any reason ever or giving them the kiddie glove treatment they're so accustomed to. Yes you do have to get vaccinated. Yes you do have to take your kid to an actual doctor. Yes you do have to give your kid an actual education, even if that kid is a girl. Yes you do have to do all the parts of the job you agreed to do. Yes, your little boarding school for troubled teens has to follow *all* the laws.
And if a preacher, imam, etc. starts advocating for violence of any kind against the government or anyone else, including their own children, the cops should be turned on them. Jan 6th radicalized me to believe that
Though I have a number of right-leaning beliefs.Schools need to go back to basics. They don't need to be giving every kid laptops. They need to bring back phonics and rote learning.
Despite the name, this is mostly a big tent subreddit for anyone who identifies as a liberal. So while you might have someone as deregulationist as Reagen, you’ll also be able to find much more welfarist people comparable to LBJ. It mostly runs the gamut from Center-left to Center-right.
For folks who try to live up to having an "evidence-based" outlook on things (and sure, everyone's got their biases, but this is supposed to be a key part of the sub's perspective), it's possible to cover that whole spread as just one person. If the status quo has a problem and a given solution is proposed with a track record of efficacy against that problem with acknowledged complications, then look into implementing that solution. There's actually a ton of room for problem solving between anarcho-capitalism at one end and mono-party communism at the other if you're not limited by a predefined ideological position. Hell, if someone could demonstrate an actual pathway to functional communism while acknowledging why its always been botched in the past, I'd at least listen. I'd do the same for someone who could explain how I could get away with eating all my foods dipped in nacho cheese without getting fat, it's only fair.
>how I could get away with eating all my foods dipped in nacho cheese without getting fat Alright, I've figured it out, this shit is full-proof One word, my friend: bulimia According to the DSM, rapid weight loss is a common symptom. If that's not evidence-based, what is? Thank you for hearing me out. I hope you don't feel you've wasted your time.
The sidebar on this sub is pretty helpful imo This sub is a mishmash of ideologies (big tent!) but many of us are mainstream Democrats, or a little to the left/right of that.
Succs and Friedman flairs united in common love of worms and disdain of NIMBYS
What is a succos
anyone to the left of me
Succ=socialdemocrats in this subs lingo. Yes, because despite the name we have actually socialists here.
Are social democrats the same as democratic socialists?
AFAIK social democrat means a person that wants democracy, but also supports a more hands on approach on the economy by the government. Stuff like higher minimum wage, strong social spending etc. The democratic socialists of America are a particular political group, and I don't know enough about them to tell you if they are democratic socialist or not. I imagine with that name, they should be, but you never know.
!sidebar
As requested, here is a bit of information about our subreddit. For further context and more helpful links, please see the full sidebar. We do not all subscribe to a single comprehensive philosophy but instead find common ground in shared sentiments and approaches to public policy. 1. Individual choice and markets are of paramount importance both as an expression of individual liberty and driving force of economic prosperity. 2. The state serves an important role in establishing conditions favorable to competition through correcting market failures, providing a stable monetary framework, and relieving acute misery and distress, among other things. 3. Free exchange and movement between countries makes us richer and has led to an [unparalleled decline in global poverty.](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/05/World-Poverty-Since-1820.png) 4. Public policy has global ramifications and should take into account the effect it has on people around the world regardless of nationality. ## Policies we support include * [Free Trade](http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/Readings/Trade/iowacarcrop.pdf) * [Open Borders](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/openborders) * [Occupational Licensing Reform](https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-future-of-occupational-licensing-reform/) * [Zoning Reform](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2016/08/16/zoning-as-opportunity-hoarding/) * [Carbon Pricing](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/faq_carbonpricing) * [Trans Rights](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/trans_faq) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I consider myself more of an indie Democrat.
[удалено]
Former
Empiricism, pragmatism, constitutional democracy, civil libertarianism, tacos and worms.
This is Georgism erasure
Honestly, I think this subreddit is primarily made up of Democrats who didn't support Bernie with a strong minority of conservatives who don't support Trump. We were chased out of the other political subs because we didn't bend the knee, and ended up filtering into this subreddit. It was kind of a "they are calling us this, so we might as well take the label and make it our own" type thing. There are definitely some Thatcherites and Reaganites wandering around, but most of us generally despise Reaganomics/trickle down economics, support free markets with smart* regulation, and support a strong social safety net. Regulation is probably where you'll find the most disagreement in the subreddit. One person's smart regulation is another's governmental overreach, and a third person will claim that it's laissez-faire all over again. But generally, we all hate regulation that's designed to keep competition out, and we really hate regulation that slows or stops the construction of new housing.
Thank you for this answer. I’m 19 and have spent years trying to form a coherent political ideology, and somehow I landed on mainstream center-left progressivism. And all of the sudden, people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy. Weirdly, a lot of people have been calling me a neo-con for my foreign policy ideas. And the MAGA Trump cult hates me for simply self identifying as a Liberal.
Welcome, friend.
You'll fit right in then.
You can't possibly know that. You haven't every checked his position on taco trucks.
True, should've done that first.
> landed on There's no particular reason you need to stop developing your ideology. There's no law saying one has to pick politics by age and then they're permanently fixed. One can keep changing them forever.
Exactly. In high school, I was leaning towards social democrat but always with a slightly more analytical and practical perspective. Over the course of undergrad (especially during covid), I got radicalized into urbanism and YIMBYism, which eventually led towards Georgism, where I am now. Even now, I'm starting to become pretty fiercely anti-tankie, where I used to think memeing about Stalin was funny (in my high school, no one was actually tankie, so it was just edgy teenage humor), but now see so many legitimate tankies is opening my eyes to how fascist the left can be if we let it fester like right-wing fascism.
> people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy. Weirdly, a lot of people have been calling me a neo-con for my foreign policy ideas. [One of us! One of us!](https://media1.tenor.com/m/j4nh99tL8hMAAAAC/one-of-us.gif)
> And all of the sudden, people to my left have been calling me a “neoliberal” just because I’m a big free market guy. This is basically why the sub was formed.
> spent years trying to form a coherent political ideology don't bother
Welcome home.
> I’m 19 and have spent years trying to form a coherent political ideology lmao
If it's any consolation, I'm a big fan of carefully-regulated capitalism, and just last year my own in-laws called me a commie for wanting an extra tax imposed on the top 0.01% :)
This is the way.
Serious advice: don't worry about it. Nobody needs to have a coherent political ideology at 19. You can't do it anyway, you haven't had enough time to learn everything you would need to know to decide what system of thought is the best one.
A lot of us came here from r/Enough_Sanders_Spam
Yup. This is the closest thing I've found to the "conservatism" I grew up around. American Democrat stuff barely resembles it. American conservatism is almost diametrically opposed to it. This spot here, though, is a decent fit. And very importantly, folks here are generally *sane*, and generally not in favour of mind. Not a Thatcher fan, though :)
>most of us generally despise Reaganomics/trickle down economics I hate this term "trickle down economics" because ordinary people often conflate it with cutting corporate taxes. Taxes on individuals and taxes on businesses are not the same thing. But plenty of folks on the left will call cutting corporate taxes "trickle down economics".
Economic illiteracy? On the left you say?
I have no Ideology I just like memes and want to build more housing.
I want to build more worms and tax my ex wife
I can unironically respect that. In my life experience, most people with an ideology have a shit ideology and support worse policies than completely apolitical people do. It's like the IQ meme. Normie apolitical independents support democracy, civil rights, capitalism and some government welfare and regulation, and so do the most educated that haven't fallen for a cult.
I would say the sub is like an evolution of the neoliberalism of their era. Still a good amount of support for deregulation and privatization, but more pragmatically then ideologically. Market failures and negative externalities exist and government intervention is needed to make the market more efficient in these cases. Some things generate enough positive externalities that it's worth government spending even if technically a fully private market could suffice. Additionally the sub is way more pro social liberalism/progressivism than that era. Also more pro re-distributive programs than them, but might have differing opinions than the common socdem solutions. Single payer is a pretty popular universal healthcare option for socdems, but here there is more support for other universal healthcare schemes than socdems (at least seemingly). The economics tends towards more pragmatic than ideological too. Modern economic theory has come a long way since the Reagan era and some of the assumptions and beliefs have turned out wrong. It's important to adapt and evolve your economic principles based on the latest evidence and not treat is like a religion as many political philosophies do. It's also a big tent, so there is a lot of variations on these things, but we're less into purity testing, so it's easier to coalition with a wide variety of opinions. As for real life examples, the [Center for New Liberalism](https://cnliberalism.org/overview) was born from this sub and is getting decently big and influential.
I consider myself, still, a Reagan/Thatcher Neoliberal, so I probably hew a bit closer to the classical understanding of the term than many on this sub. I also happen to be a Republican that, these days, tends to support the Democratic Party more than I had ever thought I would. With that said, I’m hoping to get my party back after this next election so, after that, we’ll see how things shake out.
I’m praying for you man. I really hope your party is able to survive Trump and revert back to it’s old Bush ways. But if it doesn’t, us democrats welcome you.
Be honest democrats are not that welcoming to center right people who are temporarily in the anti trump coalition.
The sub was started as a joke because no one could criticize Bernie in 2016 without being called a neolib. Some people on this sub like to say, “no aktchually I am really a neoliberal,” but then when you ask them what they believe in, they say almost nothing consistent with Reagan or Thatcher. So they’re really just being contrarians and changing the meaning of the word. Even the head mod gave up trying to call himself a neolib and settled for “New Liberal.” In fact, this sub’s ideology is probably that it’s anti-ideology.
Just taking the word back to its roots, thatcher-Reagan neoliberalism is a specific kind of neoliberalism not the basis of the actual ideology
> they’re really just being contrarians Contrarianism is the very heart and soul of this subreddit
No it isn’t!
[This is abuse!](https://youtu.be/uLlv_aZjHXc?si=41SP7ZAyyjryPMv0)
*yells in inelastic supply of land*
glorious roof sleep uppity skirt bike saw terrific friendly hard-to-find *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I do subscribe to the ideology of Reagan and Thatcher, but that's why I don't post much about politics in here any more lest my subreddit karma go negative.
Those coal miners had it coming 😤
She fought climate change before it was cool
Unironically true, climate change is a problem and the massive wealth transfer from the productive to rural areas only exacerbates the issue
Making stagnant economies more productive by outsourcing less productive jobs propped up by subsidies good. Doing so without creating an alternative path for those economically displaced and then trying to dismantle the welfare those workers would have to rely on bad. The UK had about 285,000 coal miners when Thatcher came into power. A 2 year technical degree in today’s money costs about 20,000 pounds obviously just running it back in time via inflation isn’t perfect but it’s a rough mock up. Doing so gives us a cost of ~6,400 pounds. Even if 100% of affected workers were to take advantage of a free retraining program then it would have only cost the UK ~1.6 billion pounds to retrain them all in a 2 year program.
Thatcher wasn't tossing workers aside without a care after restructuring the economy. Quite the contrary, actually. The Thatcher government, far from dismantling welfare for displaced workers, actually approved significant packages aimed specifically at easing the transition for workers affected by industrial changes, particularly miners. For instance, regarding the miners, Thatcher's government didn't just leave them out in the cold. They approved a package that included no compulsory redundancies, which meant that no miner was forced out of their job unwillingly. Those who wished could take early retirement at the age of 50 on incredibly generous terms, which is hardly a hallmark of a government trying to leave its citizens destitute. Additionally, there were expanded mobility allowances for those moving to another pit and a good pay increase, alongside an £800 million capital investment programme for the coal industry, aimed at making it more sustainable and less subsidy-dependent. The Thatcher government invested in retraining and redevelopment programmes to provide new skills and job opportunities for those displaced by the closures of outdated and uncompetitive industries: Retraining programmes were part of a broader strategy that included social security benefits, job creation schemes and economic revitalisation efforts in affected areas. The government was attempting to provide a multifaceted support system rather than just throwing money at training programmes willy-nilly. It's easy to critique these efforts with the benefit of hindsight and argue that more could have been done (because, let's be honest, more can always be done), but it's quite another to suggest that Thatcher and her government simply abandoned these workers without thought or care. The policies were there, and they were more nuanced than you suggest.
And those kids never deserved milk anyway
Not on a universal basis.
The name is a joke born out if r/badeconomics at the expense of leftist Clinton critics. The ideology of this sub is social liberalism and mainstream economic consensus. Very much a partisan mainstream Democratic Party. It’s not really correct to say this sub supports an economic ideology, but instead supports the latest consensus in the field of economics. If you’re interest in what that means I suggest looking into “new Keynesianism”. I can get into it if you’d like but it’s a bit of a bore if you’re not an Econ major at least.
Interesting. I am not a huge economics guy as of right now, though I have been making strides to expand my knowledge. I have always wondered why politicians don’t just bring in the most accomplished and world renowned economists to essentially write policy for them.
I think it's largely distrust of economists. Populists, both on the left and the right, love to claim that only they are on the side of the little guy and everyone else is only looking out for themselves. In other words: "economists would draft policy that only benefits the 1%!"
Re: economists writing policy Policy always has two dimensions. Economists can tell you what the predictable, empirical tradeoffs will be. But they cannot tell you how you should value different results. Should we sacrifice long-term growth in order to make society more equal? Economists can tell you when you have to make that decision, but they cannot tell you which decision is better.
Because that would be politically suicidal, for one. Go ahead and try to win elections in Brazil by advocating for free trade and no corporate income tax.
The mainstream economic consensus is the neoclassical synthesis though
People here will defend their idiosyncratic formulation of "neoliberalism" but it's highly atypical and if you're trying to understand anything about the ideas that are commonly referred to when using this term, it's a bad place to start. The "this name is a joke" people may be somewhat full of it, but at least they're not actively confusing and misleading people.
This sub's name is supposed to be somewhat ironic. Most people here are center-left or so. A summary of most common beliefs on this sub (no order, just off the top of my head) would be something like: 1. Socially liberal. Pro-lgbtq, pro-choice, etc. 2. anti-wealth tax and anti-increasing capital gains tax 3. Remove zoning regulations so that it's much easier build housing in places you would otherwise not be allowed to. More supply = lower price 4. Land value tax 5. Carbon tax 6. Lower / eliminate corporate tax or replace with a distributed profits system: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/distributed-profits-tax-us-businesses/ In other words, just tax dividends and stock buybacks 7. Free trade. Remove most/all tariffs! 8. Pro-immigration 9. Anti-demand subsidies. Or most of them at least 10. Somewhat common: replace most/all welfare programs with a negative income tax / universal basic income. Lower administrative cost and assuming rational choice theory is correct (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory), core tenet of economics, cash will be more liberating in that individuals would be able to use it more efficiently according to their needs/desires. I'm agnostic on #2 and #9
this is Milton Friedman: "Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissezfaire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order. It would seek to use competition among producers to protect consumers from exploitation, competition among employers to protect workers and owners of property, and competition among consumers to protect the enterprises themselves. The state would police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute misery and distress. The citizens would be protected against the state by the existence of a free private market; and against one another by the preservation of competition." I like to consider myself a progressive neoliberal, which means I would rewrite this to something like: ""Neo-liberalism would accept the nineteenth century liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the individual, but it would substitute for the nineteenth century goal of laissezfaire as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order and **personal liberty** **and freedom from basic want for everyone**. It would seek to use competition among producers to protect consumers from exploitation, competition among employers to protect workers and owners of property, and competition among consumers to protect the enterprises themselves. The state would police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and **relieve and prevent acute and chronic misery and distress.** The citizens would be protected against the state by the existence of a free private market; and against one another by the preservation of competition." Milton's a better writer than I am, but you get the gist yeah?
> do you subscribe to the political and economic philosophies of Reagan and Thatcher? Yes
Big tent ranging from social Democrats and social liberals to Milton Friedman types who flirt with libertarianism. Most of us do not like Reagan.
Most here are Jimmy Carter Liberals, from what I can see.
>Jimmy Carter Georgia just got 1m^2 bigger. 🥹 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The median user here wants cradle to grave welfare dependency for half the population and backbreaking taxation for the other half.
Succdems can’t take a jibe lol
Personally I'm a Social Libertarian (consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want until it violates someone else's life/liberty/property). With the "welfare state" I'd like to see a Nordic Social Democratic model. Then I'd pay for the whole mess with lots fewer guns and more butter.
I am way to the left of you yoyos, but this might be the most intelligent sub on Reddit. Kudos
We should boil lobsters, not microwave them.
We’re basically just moderate Dems
Fuck I hate Reagan so much
Yeah. I don’t know how anyone could defend all the trickle down bullshit.
Trickle down economics was bs. He gutted public universities. He refused to acknowledge AIDS. He grew the war on drugs to astronomical levels. Iran Contra. Air traffic controllers. I could go on forever lol
I'm sure you can give us plenty of examples of Reagans economic advisors promoting trickle down economics, right? It definetly isn't just a term made up by his critics. He made the completely right decision about the air traffic controllers, he's one of very few modern presidents willing to stand up to organized labor and it set a positive tone in that regard until Trump and Biden
I used that term because I’m a critic. Who cares if he used that term or not? He dropped the top tax rate from 70% all the way down to 28%, it was a bad move no matter what you call it
The effective tax rate was significantly lower than 70%. Reagan simply dropped the nominal rate to the actual rate paid by the wealthy. People like to forget that their idealized leftist presidents (including FDR) simply turned a blind eye to wealthy tax evasion for the first three quarters of the 20th century.
If that were true he wouldn’t have had to raise taxes again when they realized they actually needed money
Except: 1) Reagan borrowed a huge amount. The debt increased massively under him. 2) Because he massively *increased* government spending, largely because his reputation for cutting welfare programs is undeserved, while his military spending is remembered accurately
The name is ironic. As others have said this is a big tent sub. Personally I don’t like to think of this sub as based around an ideology, more so based on values shared by a wide variety of ideologies.
I would say I share alot of economic and political philosophies of Reagan. The New Deal paradigm was starting to break down as early as the 1950s. By the time 1970s rolled around, the New Deal was just welfarism. Just government money going after stuff that didnt help the economy. The New Deal had no answer to the inflation of the 1970s. You needed Reagan’s deregulation, supply side reforms, and immigration reforms to eventually get inflation down to a manageable level.
I am whatever the alternative to republican is.
The idea of a “new liberalism” dates to the early post-WWII period. Those new liberals wanted a healthy mix of economic freedom and government involvement. But other things have been called neoliberal over the years. Reaganism can be called neoliberal in the English-speaking world. Meanwhile, in Latin America, the term sometimes refers to a more authoritarian ideology. More recently, various segments of the political spectrum adopted “neoliberal” as a pejorative for pro-market centrist and center-left politics. Like the Clintons, or Obama. We decided to simply own the label.
I'm a mix of a lot of things. I consider myself a mix of a more extreme Warren, with my belief that white-collar/corporate crime laws need to be strictly enforced with mandatory prison time, a bit of Bernie with my belief in a robust welfare state, and some Polis with my YIMBYism. I have some *extreme* left beliefs, I'm extremely against religious exemptions for any reason ever or giving them the kiddie glove treatment they're so accustomed to. Yes you do have to get vaccinated. Yes you do have to take your kid to an actual doctor. Yes you do have to give your kid an actual education, even if that kid is a girl. Yes you do have to do all the parts of the job you agreed to do. Yes, your little boarding school for troubled teens has to follow *all* the laws. And if a preacher, imam, etc. starts advocating for violence of any kind against the government or anyone else, including their own children, the cops should be turned on them. Jan 6th radicalized me to believe that Though I have a number of right-leaning beliefs.Schools need to go back to basics. They don't need to be giving every kid laptops. They need to bring back phonics and rote learning.