Neo liberal capitalist superiority - Exposed as bullshit !

According to the conventional wisdom popularized by Thomas Friedman, countries can grow rich only by means of unfettered capitalism and pure free trade. In his controversial book, Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang takes aim at this orthodoxy. Combining irreverent wit with scholarly rigor, Chang shows that nations like the U.S. that achieved their present wealth by means of economic nationalism now preach an entirely different set of policies to the developing world, via the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization. Chang calls on us not only to re-evaluate the policies we promote to countries seeking to grow rich, but also to become reacquainted with our own forgotten economic history.

Ha-Joon Chang has been described by one economist as "the most exciting thinker our profession has turned out in the past fifteen years." He teaches at Cambridge University, where he received his Master's degree and doctorate. A consultant for the Wold Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the UN and other international organizations, he was awarded the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought in 2005. His book Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective (2002), which received the Myrdal Prize, was acclaimed by the eminent MIT economist Charles Kindleberger as "a provocative critique of mainstream economists' sermons directed to developing countries."




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5-ojv5-b3U

THIS IS IMPORTANT

you know that vidio is 70 minuits long.....

frideman was an asshole, I know that.

Heh, a Korean author. I knew it.

I hope he continues the fight against "free market" capitalism and expose the horrible truth.

FIGHTING!!!

What a loser, fighting is no use. Free trade imperialism is not going to be stopped by his puny book. it is stopped by a revolution.

Pannekoek wrote:

What a loser, fighting is no use. Free trade imperialism is not going to be stopped by his puny book. it is stopped by a revolution.

You should really act a little more mature. Any form of fighting is good. Remember Marx also wrote books.

I know fighting is good but not liberal reformite kind.

Emy wrote:

I know fighting is good but not liberal reformite kind.

If you learn his works you can down talk any neo liberals when it comes to economics and dispel their self serving MYTH that neo liberalism has triumphed over state regulation.


He basicly proves that US free market capitalism is inferior to state regulation
esp in developing nations and that neo liberalism has failed the world over.

Neoliberalism has been destroyed centuries ago. It's called Das Kapital. Karl Marx was the first leftist to challenge and defeat the liberals on their own turf-economics.

Emy wrote:

Neoliberalism has been destroyed centuries ago. It's called Das Kapital. Karl Marx was the first leftist to challenge and defeat the liberals on their own turf-economics.

No that wasn't Neo liberalism that was classical liberalism - different
Anyway some of Marx's theories 'as much as I admire him' contain a number of flaws and have been rejected.

This guy has proven beyond a doubt that neo liberalism is inferior to more planned economies - this has significant implications for socialists.

His works are accepted by the academic community and are in circulation.

Neoliberalsim is short for neoclassical liberalism. They are the same thing. Marx has never been proved wrong. Marx proved why capitalism in any form is doomed. This guy proved why welfare state capitalism gives people a little more money that free market capitalism. Wow he is so much better than Marx.

Emy wrote:

Neoliberalsim is short for neoclassical liberalism. They are the same thing. Marx has never been proved wrong. Marx proved why capitalism in any form is doomed. This guy proved why welfare state capitalism gives people a little more money that free market capitalism. Wow he is so much better than Marx.

Classical liberalism is old liberalism ie Euro liberal - Neo means 'post'-'after' Neo liberalism = post liberalism ie modern liberalism or US liberalism.

Anyway Ha Joon Chang has proven that regulated economies have outperformed the 'free market' which means that he has dicredited coorprate
capitalism and shown that socialist reg economy has functioned - Noam Chomsky has also proven this.

Normally you are right but neoliberals are like libertarians. Modern liberals are like matti.

wikipedia wrote:

Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is a syllabic abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism"

Also this doesnt prove why capitalism will end only why you should like one type of capitalism more than the other.

Comrade Emy wrote:

Normally you are right but neoliberals are like libertarians. Modern liberals are like matti.

wikipedia wrote:

Strictly in the context of English-language usage the term is a syllabic abbreviation of "neoclassical liberalism"

Also this doesnt prove why capitalism will end only why you should like one type of capitalism more than the other.

Neoliberals = modern liberalism - US liberal
Classical liberalism = old liberalism - Euro liberal -


He proves why 'free market' capitalism is inferior to state regulation of the market ect - essential for a transition to socialism.

Okay I just gave you a link explaining that neoliberalism is the same as classical liberalism. Also you can ask any libertarian, they consider themself as a neoliberal. Neo means new so neoliberalism =new liberalism. Modern "liberalism" is not really that liberal, it's more like moderate social democracy.

How is this essential if it doesn't even prove that socialism is inevitable?