I think the Clinton years had just about the perfect Neo-Liberal recipe, lacking only higher immigration of high skilled people. and perhaps more infrastructure and R&D investment. Regan and Bush deficits are not orthodox "Neo-Liberalism."
OK. I'll stop (for the moment :)) being provocative with my private definition of "Neo-Liberal." I think that in 1980 (and today) there were many regulations that do not pass a cost benefit test and that even if they have some redistributive effect it was too little to be worthwhile. I don't know for sure but I think that a tax reform that lowered the highest marginal rates and indexed capital gains would have been a good idea if it raised revenue. WTO rounds were a good thing (though we ought to have put more of our negotiating effort into getting our trading partners to open more to our goods exports rather than pay us for intellectual property rights." Increasing taxes to bring them in line with SS and Medicare benefits was a good thing (though switching from a wage tax to a VAT would have been better). Ending "welfare as we knew it" for an EITC was a good thing. Something like ACA would have been a good thing. (A deficit neutral child tax credit and tax on net CO2 emissions would have been good things, too, but I didn't know that at the time).
In general I think there were ways to have made policy more market/growth friendly without making the tax and redistribution system less progressive, what ever it was called.
There's a post on your book at LGM. As usual, the discussion ranges rather further than the limits of what you wrote. :) https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2022/09/what-is-the-most-important-thing-in-the-world
Thanks very much for alerting me...
I think the Clinton years had just about the perfect Neo-Liberal recipe, lacking only higher immigration of high skilled people. and perhaps more infrastructure and R&D investment. Regan and Bush deficits are not orthodox "Neo-Liberalism."
A system is what it does. “Neoliberalism” is a ratchet to reduce the size of tjhe safety net and raise the inequality of wealth...
OK. I'll stop (for the moment :)) being provocative with my private definition of "Neo-Liberal." I think that in 1980 (and today) there were many regulations that do not pass a cost benefit test and that even if they have some redistributive effect it was too little to be worthwhile. I don't know for sure but I think that a tax reform that lowered the highest marginal rates and indexed capital gains would have been a good idea if it raised revenue. WTO rounds were a good thing (though we ought to have put more of our negotiating effort into getting our trading partners to open more to our goods exports rather than pay us for intellectual property rights." Increasing taxes to bring them in line with SS and Medicare benefits was a good thing (though switching from a wage tax to a VAT would have been better). Ending "welfare as we knew it" for an EITC was a good thing. Something like ACA would have been a good thing. (A deficit neutral child tax credit and tax on net CO2 emissions would have been good things, too, but I didn't know that at the time).
In general I think there were ways to have made policy more market/growth friendly without making the tax and redistribution system less progressive, what ever it was called.