One possible conclusion after reading the China Talk piece: in going all in on "economic warfare", the US has basically confirmed the validity of the CCP's argument.
The U.S. sees China as having declared that it is fine with rea; war being back on the international-relations table via its backing of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its “no limits” partnership with Putin. The CCP has worked very hard to make its argument “valid”...
The difference between the left and right neoliberals? The left neoliberals were in charge of their project, and all came from places like MIT Econ or Yale Law. The left neoliberals were keen on policy, but disdained political economy. The right neoliberals may have a similar mindset, but they weren't running the show. The plutocracy ran the show, and the right neoliberals were merely their priestly class. The plutocracy--skilled rent-seekers--is skilled at practical political economy. And you can't take the political economy out of policy.
There is no symmetry between the left neoliberals--policy wonks--and the right neoliberals: hierophants for their funders.
Neoliberalism as a “creed that prizes free trade and the free movement of capital, goods and people,” Yes, but not for their own sake, but for promoting broad based, inclusive growth and including nothing about reducing taxes on the rich or creating currency-revaluating deficits or “we must save banks but not homeowners”
What you call, “Left neo-Liberalism” Is what I think of a prudent tweak to “Social Democracy,” the orthodoxy to which Regan and Bush were heretics, Traditors turning over the Scriptures to Mammon.
Seen with 20-20 hindsight the 2009 “stimulus” like the 2021 “stimulus” was mis-conceived as “stimulus” conceptualized as how much was “needed” rather than as “relief” conceptualized as how long it was needed. Paradoxically, because of the Fed’s self-imposed limits in 2009-?, “stimulus”, larger deficits, WERE needed.
The ways in which Bidenism is different from Clintonism are not good. And I see Biden and Obama as needing to be much more defensive from attack from the Right than Clinton.
“Right Neoliberalism” failed. The short period of Clinton-Blair Left Neoliberalism did pretty well.
Well, yes. But we could not win durable congressional majorities in the US, or persuade even one of five Republican Supreme Court justices to do the right thing, or persuade Nick Clegg not to act like a Nick Clegg.
One possible conclusion after reading the China Talk piece: in going all in on "economic warfare", the US has basically confirmed the validity of the CCP's argument.
The U.S. sees China as having declared that it is fine with rea; war being back on the international-relations table via its backing of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its “no limits” partnership with Putin. The CCP has worked very hard to make its argument “valid”...
I'm not sure what to make of this response.
When has "real war" - including the wars that the USA has engaged in for much of this century - ever been off the international relations table?
Or are you suggesting that China is desirous of engaging in a "real war" with the USA?
Or is it something else?
The difference between the left and right neoliberals? The left neoliberals were in charge of their project, and all came from places like MIT Econ or Yale Law. The left neoliberals were keen on policy, but disdained political economy. The right neoliberals may have a similar mindset, but they weren't running the show. The plutocracy ran the show, and the right neoliberals were merely their priestly class. The plutocracy--skilled rent-seekers--is skilled at practical political economy. And you can't take the political economy out of policy.
There is no symmetry between the left neoliberals--policy wonks--and the right neoliberals: hierophants for their funders.
touché… There is, I think, much in what you say...
My take on your take:
Neoliberalism as a “creed that prizes free trade and the free movement of capital, goods and people,” Yes, but not for their own sake, but for promoting broad based, inclusive growth and including nothing about reducing taxes on the rich or creating currency-revaluating deficits or “we must save banks but not homeowners”
What you call, “Left neo-Liberalism” Is what I think of a prudent tweak to “Social Democracy,” the orthodoxy to which Regan and Bush were heretics, Traditors turning over the Scriptures to Mammon.
Seen with 20-20 hindsight the 2009 “stimulus” like the 2021 “stimulus” was mis-conceived as “stimulus” conceptualized as how much was “needed” rather than as “relief” conceptualized as how long it was needed. Paradoxically, because of the Fed’s self-imposed limits in 2009-?, “stimulus”, larger deficits, WERE needed.
The ways in which Bidenism is different from Clintonism are not good. And I see Biden and Obama as needing to be much more defensive from attack from the Right than Clinton.
“Right Neoliberalism” failed. The short period of Clinton-Blair Left Neoliberalism did pretty well.
Well, yes. But we could not win durable congressional majorities in the US, or persuade even one of five Republican Supreme Court justices to do the right thing, or persuade Nick Clegg not to act like a Nick Clegg.
Yes. Politics. But how to keep the well deserved criticisms of the heretics from impugning the Orthodox?