"Neoliberalism" is mostly a useless term, used as vague attacks instead of nuanced discussion.

Noam Chomsky's book Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order seems like a good place to start.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on April 19, 2016, 01:30:19 PM

"Neoliberalism" is mostly a useless term, used as vague attacks instead of nuanced discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

So . . . What? It has a definition?

Great. That doesn't change the way how people use it, which is as a vague attack to avoid nuanced discussion. If you actually read through that wikipedia page, you'll notice that it states neoliberalism was originally based off the ideas of Mises and Hayek. Mises and Hayek are worlds apart in a lot of respect, as were Hayek and Friedman, and for some reason Rand turns up, etc. etc.

A label that can include pretty much anybody in the mainstream (which, let's be honest, is all it really means) and that doesn't actually bring anything new to the table in terms of evidence or novel points, isn't very useful. It's used mostly by ignorant, virtue-signalling faggots who have no interest in the concepts at play except as ways to highlight what side they're on.

Quote from: Dan on April 19, 2016, 01:35:11 PM

Noam Chomsky's book Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order seems like a good place to start.

>Noam Chomsky

I'm critical of neoliberalism too but let's not cite spooked out ideologue retards.

Great argument. You sure convinced me.

The thing I've noticed about people who are anti-chomsky on this forum is that all they can do is resort to name-calling and ad hominem, or they regress to "lul chomsky is retarded" kind of rhetoric.

Quote from: Jeremiah Johnson on April 19, 2016, 01:40:39 PM

Quote from: Dan on April 19, 2016, 01:35:11 PM

Noam Chomsky's book Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order seems like a good place to start.

>Noam Chomsky

I'm critical of neoliberalism too but let's not cite spooked out ideologue retards.

Great argument. You sure convinced me.

The thing I've noticed about people who are anti-chomsky on this forum is that all they can do is resort to name-calling and ad hominem, or they regress to "lul chomsky is retarded" kind of rhetoric.

if you want good sources and well-thought-out arguments, you shouldnt be talking to door