Neoliberalism is a political economic philosophy that consists of two claims, one economic and the other political. The economic claim is free market laissez-faire economies are the best way to organize economic activity as they generate efficient outcomes that maximize well-being. The political claim is free market economic arrangements promote individual liberty. This paper argues both claims are problematic. The evidence from the forty-year experiment that began in 1980 shows Neoliberalism has undercut shared prosperity and unleashed illiberal forces that threaten liberty. The paper distinguishes between the first political turn which saw the establishment of Neoliberal political hegemony, and the second political turn toward proto-fascism that we are now experiencing. The second turn is being driven by a collection of factors which have created a demand for proto-fascism and weakened the defenses against alt-right ideas. Those factors include socio-economic disembedding, institutional destruction and political disembedding, increased economic inequality that tilts political power, transformation of attitudes to government and governance, transformation of economic identity, and cultural transformation that celebrates sociopathic egotism. The Third Way’s capture of center-left politics means liberal elites occupy the political place that should be held by true opponents of Neoliberalism. Those liberal elites obstruct the politics needed to reverse the deep causes of the drift to proto-fascism. Ironically, that makes those elites a real danger.
The false promise and bitter fruit of Neoliberalism: political economic disembedding, cultural transformation, and the rise of proto-fascist politics
October 11th, 2022Sabotaging Germany, blaming Russia: another view of the Nord Stream pipeline attack
October 1st, 2022Imagine Moscow was nuked yesterday, and this morning The New York Times ran a frontpage headline “Moscow nuked: Russia proves its hostility to Europe again”. Sounds pretty crazy? Yet, in a manner of speaking, that is what happened last week.
On Tuesday September 27th three major leaks caused by undersea explosions were discovered in the Nord Stream gas pipelines connecting Russia and Germany. The New York Times evening e-mail briefing, which is sent to nine million readers, headlined “suspicion of Russian sabotage”. The Wednesday European edition ran a similar headline accompanied by comments about the attacks proving Russian aggression against Europe.
The same take echoed in the UK. The conservative Telegraph newspaper ran a headline “Nord Stream sabotage mapped: how Putin could have carried out the attack” along with a photo of Vladimir Putin in a submersible. Meanwhile, the progressive Guardian ran a headline about a “new phase of hybrid war” against Europe with the sub-title accusing Russia of suspected sabotage.
Read the rest of this entry »How the West betrayed Mikhail Gorbachev and seeded the Ukraine conflict
September 1st, 2022Mikhail Gorbachev died on August 30, 2022. Since then, praises have flowed from Western leaders. Those praises obscure how the West betrayed Gorbachev after he fell from power, and how that betrayal seeded the Ukraine conflict.
The story is complicated because Gorbachev’s fall was triggered by Communist Party hardliners, so the troubles which befell Russia thereafter are also significantly due to Russian actions. That said, Gorbachev sought a partnership for peace, prosperity, and democracy. After he fell, the West reneged on its handshake agreement with him.
A tribute to Gorbachev’s inspiring vision
Before turning to the details of that betrayal, a tribute to Gorbachev is warranted. Gorbachev sought to transform the Soviet Union from a closed repressive system into an open consultative socialist system that would be part of the European family. That aspiration was described as glasnost (openness) and was pushed through the Perestroika reform movement.
Read the rest of this entry »Theorizing dollar hegemony, Part 1: the political economic foundations of exorbitant privilege
August 23rd, 2022This paper explores dollar hegemony, emphasizing it is a fundamentally political economic phenomenon. Dollar hegemony rests on the economic, military, and international political power of the US and is manifested through market forces. The paper argues there have been two eras of dollar hegemony which were marked by different models. Dollar hegemony 1.0 corresponded to the Bretton Woods era (1946-1971). Dollar hegemony 2.0 corresponds to the Neoliberal era (1980-Today). The 1970s were an in-between decade of dollar distress during which dollar hegemony was reseeded. The deep foundation of both models is US power, but the two models have completely different economic operating systems. Dollar hegemony 1.0 rested on the trade and manufacturing dominance of the US after World War II. Dollar hegemony 2.0 rests on the Neoliberal reconstruction of the US and global economies which have made the US the center of global capitalism and the most attractive place to hold capital. It is a financial model and intrinsically connected to Neoliberalism. Consideration of dollar hegemony leads to two further questions. One is whether there is a better way of organizing the world monetary order, which is associated with debate about the possibility of a new Bretton Woods. The other is what is the future of dollar hegemony?
Flirting with Armageddon: the US and Ukraine
August 13th, 2022It is now almost six months since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and with each passing month the Biden administration has ratcheted up US participation in the conflict. That ratchet process has the US flirting ever closer with nuclear Armageddon, a momentous development that has gone almost uncommented and uncontested. It is as if the US is sleepwalking, eyes wide shut.
The political background
US engagement in the Ukraine war has been driven by the Democratic Party, enthusiastically supported by its traditional allies in the mainstream media and establishment intellectual class – also known as the liberal blob. That has made criticism of the war difficult for two reasons.
First, the liberal blob has promulgated an edict of silence against those who challenge its explanation of the war and the case for US participation. The edict applies to conservatives who argue “it’s not our war”, and to independent critics who argue the war has been “made in the USA” via a thirty-year slow-motion attack on Russia conducted through eastward expansion of NATO and regime change subversion in the republics of the former Soviet Union.
Second, the US is engaged in a life and death struggle for its own democracy, with the Republican Party having gone off the rails through its embrace of Donald Trump’s protofascism. That struggle poses an awful dilemma, as criticizing the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy risks opening the door for the protofascists.
With nuclear Armageddon a possibility on the horizon, the stakes are too high for silence. The truth about the war, the Democratic Party, and the liberal blob must be spoken. There is still time to reverse course, and public opinion is capable of mastering two issues. It can both reject Republican protofascism and demand reversal of the policy of Ukraine escalation.
Toxic takeover: the Neocon capture of the Democratic Party
The starting point is blunt admission that President Biden and his national security team have put the US within spitting distance of nuclear armageddon. That has been done for a war with no bearing on US vital national security interests.
Worse yet, it is not an accidental misjudgement. Instead, it reflects the comprehensive capture of the Democratic Party by the most extreme Neocon foreign policy thinking. That thinking calls for the US to seek global military hegemony, which Democrats have wrapped in a cloak weaved of the lie of democracy promotion and the delusion of US moral exceptionalism.
Read the rest of this entry »Neoliberalism and the Road to Inequality and Stagnation: A Chronicle Foretold
April 29th, 2022My latest book has recently been published by Edward Elgar.
The book explores the impact of neoliberal policies on the US, Europe, and the global economy. It shows how the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession were predictable outcomes of the neoliberal policy experiment, as is the emergence of global “race to the bottom” competition. It also explains how Europe’s economic fragility is connected to the neoliberal design of the euro. Neoliberalism creates a particular variety of capitalism and is a political choice. That means society is tacitly engaged in a “war of ideas”, the outcome of which will influence our future political economic trajectory.
The book is available HERE. The cheapest option is the e-book purchased via Googleplay (price = $13.11).
More on the critique of New Developmentalism
April 11th, 2022Oreiro and de Paula’s (2022) reply to my article (Palley, 2021) further convinces me that New Developmentalism (ND) substantially misconstrues the development challenge and ND’s policy recommendations lean in a Neoliberal direction. The critique of ND is not its emphasis of the importance of manufacturing. It is the regressive inclination, the narrowness of policy recommendations, neglect of the transformation dimension of development, and neglect of the implications of the shift to a post-industrial era.
Ukraine: what will be done and what should be done?
February 24th, 2022Preamble/Postscript:
While rightly condemning Russia for its invasion, the mainstream media continues to selectively report the history behind these events. In my view, its omissions are intentional and contribute to the tragedy. They inflame public understanding, render a diplomatic resolution more difficult, and lock us into a worse trajectory.
Let me make further clear my argument: (1) President Putin is head of the Russian state which is under slow-motion implacable attack by US-led NATO. (2) After failing to secure a satisfactory diplomatic resolution, he has taken action to head off that attack.
If you accept those two propositions, the Ukraine story is massively more complicated than simply claiming Putin is an aggressor and we (the US) are good. There will be no lasting peace until that complexity is fully engaged.
What will be done and what should be done?
The inevitable has happened. Russia has invaded Ukraine. It was inevitable because the US and its NATO partners had backed Russia into a corner from which it could only escape by military means.
In effect, Russia confronted a future in which the US would increasingly tighten the noose around its neck by further eastward expansion of NATO, combined with military upgrading by the US of its Eastern European NATO proxies.
Accompanying that militarization was the prospect of a ramped-up propaganda war in which western media fanned the flames of public animus against Russia. Side-by-side, US government financed entities (such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the German Marshall Fund) would seek to influence European and Russian politics with the goal of regime change.
At this stage, there are two questions. What will be done? And what should be done?
Read the rest of this entry »American Exceptionalism and the Liberal Menace: the US and Ukraine
February 13th, 2022American exceptionalism is the most dangerous doctrine in the world, and it has been on full display in the current Ukraine crisis. Worse yet, the loudest advocates have been America’s elite liberal class.
The doctrine of exceptionalism holds that the US is inherently different from and superior to other nations. That superiority means the US is subject to a different standard. Its actions are claimed to be benevolent and above international law, and the US is entitled to intervene at will around the world, including building a global network of military bases and garrisons that it would never permit another power to have.
The Liberal Menace
In today’s United States, liberals are the most extreme proponents of American exceptionalism. In contrast, Republicans and conservatives are inclined to justify foreign policy by appeal to raw power, with the US doing what it wants because it can.
For myself, I have long been leery of American liberals. I term them the “liberal menace”. That is because they have been a major obstruction to progress toward a social democratic society for the past forty years.
Read the rest of this entry »Theorizing varieties of capitalism: economics and the fallacy that “There is no alternative (TINA)”
February 2nd, 2022The VoCs approach to capitalism has the potential to transform economics. It tacitly emphasizes the plasticity of economies, whereby their character and outcomes are significantly a matter of choice. This paper augments VoCs theory to include a distinction between varieties and varietals of capitalism. Drawing on biology, varieties correspond to species and varietals correspond to sub-species. The paper proposes an analytical framework that unifies VoCs theory. It adds a mesoeconomics that links macroeconomics and microeconomics. That mesoeconomics concerns the institutions, behavioral norms, rules and regulations, and policies that characterize the economy and influence its performance. The mesoeconomic structure is described using the metaphor of a box, the six sides of which correspond to the major dimensions of capitalist economies. The design of the box is the product of societal and political choices, which places politics at the center of VoCs analysis. Policy space and policy lock-in are important concerns as they impact the choice set. The fact that economies inevitably involve choice means there is an inescapable normative question regarding what type of capitalism society will have.