What is Neo-Liberalism?

From what I can tell, it sounds very much like neo-conservatism but I am sure there must be some distinction.

Or is it more like neo-Libertarianism? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the brand of Liberalism I am familiar with.

like pro-corporate conservatism or libertarianism - with a lack of concern for social justice. I was kind of hoping for a layman's definition as to why the need for a separate term, when it seems like just another form of economic conservatism.

At best the term "neo-liberalism" seems like a misnomer. Here's the part that concerns me:

"Critics of neo-liberalism in both theory and practice are numerous, particularly in developing nations whose assets have been sold off to foreigners, and their domestic political and economic institutions destroyed by the effects of being exposed to trade. Within the neo-liberal movement there is intense criticism of how many developed nations have demanded that others liberalize their markets for manufactured goods, while protecting their own domestic agricultural markets.

Anti-globalization advocates are the most vociferous opponents of neo-liberalism, particular its implementation as "free capital flows" but not free labor flows. They argue that neo-liberalism represents a "race to the bottom" as capital flows to the lowest environmental and labor standards, and is merely updated "beggar they neighbor" imperialism, dating back 200 years. In this they are in fundamental agreement with many of neo-liberalism's supporters who argue that neo-liberalism represents classical liberalism."

This is why I was so pissed at Clinton after he ran on a very progressive platform that got him elected and then immediately turned to a slightly right-of-center moderate platform. Don't get me wrong, he's the best republican president we've ever had. :-)

You'll find a lot of liberals with a background in economics, such as myself, who would consider themselved neo-liberals. We're big backers of the free market as a means of installing equality among nations. It's a lot more complicated than that, but just image a democrat that would be for smaller goverment, less taxes, and less goverment financial restriction. Sound interesting? Check us neo-liberals out!

-Will

NO!

It sounds like conservatism:

just image a democrat that would be for smaller goverment, less taxes, and less goverment financial restriction.

Yuck.

Washington Consensus
The phrase “Washington Consensus” is today a very popular and often pilloried term in debates about trade and development. It is often seen as synonymous with “neoliberalism” and “globalization.” As the phrase’s originator, John Williamson, says: “Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.” <1>

Williamson originally coined the phrase in 1990 “to refer to the lowest common denominator of policy advice being addressed by the Washington-based institutions to Latin American countries as of 1989.” <2> These policies were:

Fiscal discipline
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base)
Interest rate liberalization
A competitive exchange rate
Trade liberalization
Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
Privatization
Deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry and exit)
Secure property rights
Since then, the phrase “Washington Consensus” has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction amongst anti-globalization protestors, developing country politicians and officials, trade negotiators, and numerous others. It is often used interchangeably with the phrase “neoliberal policies.” But, as Williamson also states:

Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz... do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization...monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas. <1>

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html

It's a very bad thing.......very bad......

Which, curiously (or not, as the case may be), was one way the Nazis referred to Nazism.

is what it appears to boil down to.

Neo-Liberals are cannibals, much like colonialists. They pretend to be nice humans but they are vile, alien lizards that want suck the Earth dry.

He's a fiscally Conservative Liberal that thinks that Gummint is just two big....

If it isn't theirs.

as Neo-Assholes, just for simplification.

the former (profess to) want to save the world and the latter want to destroy/own it. A pox on both these houses.

a poster was trying to make a difference between neo-cons and neo-libs and it seemed to me that there was no difference other than that the neo-cons seem to have a more Zionist bent.

neo-liberals are too easy-going on personal behavior issues to be cultural conservatives, too into government promotion of big business and corporate-type globalization to be libertarians, and too unconcerned about the poor to be New Deal Democrats.

...different wrapper. The Corporate think tanks decided they needed an new brand name to further infiltrate the Democratic Party.

The lofty rationalizations for free trade disappear in the real world race for the bottom.

hey now, the well runs dry
pages of your books on fire
read the writing
on the wall

hoedown, it's a show-down
everywhere you look, we're fighting
hear the call

and you know it's gettin' stronger
can't last very much longer
turn to stone

well, there's a change in the wind
you know, the signs don't lie
such a strange feeling
and I don't know why
it's taking
such a long time

backyard people
and they work all day
tired of the speeches
and the way that the reasons
keep changing
just to make the words rhyme

and you know it's getting stronger
can't make 'em run much longer
turn to stone

Toe the party line... shut up and vote. Dont try to think differently and remember, anything dealing with buisiness is always evil. We need to destroy all the companies so our people can be equally prosperous. That should about sum up the consensus here as you can plainly see.

Evil does not make a liberal. Jackboot steps or "toe the line" does not make a liberal. You are mistaken. Howver, those words do fit the fascist faction of politics. Bush had the word evil dripping out of his mouth every time he described Saddam. Of course, he never said it about Osama, who isn't a person of concern anymore. You figure it out.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

That site might also give a little bit of insight. Especially read the FAQ, #20.