Fun to see what the Tuberosum Elyanum thinks defines neoliberalism:
There is money in the bank
Banks lend out other people’s money
Slightly self contradictory in those first two. If banks don’t lend out depositor money but people do deposit money in banks then there must be money in the bank.
Banks do in fact finance their loans with deposits. That’s why deposits plus capital always equal loans, as can be seen on any bank balance sheet.
Tax pays for spending
Resources deployed by government are abstracted from the economy. Tax pays for spending is a useful shorthand, no more.
Government debt has to be repaid
Yes, it does. Imagine the value of a gilt if government says that you, you darlin’ little saver you, will never get your capital back.
Growth is the be-all and end-all of the economy and nothing else matters
The purpose of an economy, of a civilisation even, is that more folk get more of what folk want. So, yes, growth is the aim.
Austerity is the right response to economic downturns
Can be. Worked damn well in 1932 after all.
Public services are black holes into which many is thrown
Sometimes. That which pays tubers to be professors might qualify.
Government spending can’t add to growth
Not even I believe that.
Money creation is bound to lead to inflation
Nonsense. As even Fridman pointed out, sometimes it will, sometimes it won’t. The question is, when? To the point that Friedman – St Milton himself – insisted that a growing economy required a growing money supply.
The government must balance its books
Some relationship would be useful, yes. A complete unhinging leads to Zimbabwe.
We can’t afford pay rise during inflationary periods
CEO pay is going up nicely so clearly we can.
Profit is a measure of anything useful
Profit is the measure of value added in an activity. The output is worth more, at market prices, than the inputs in their alternative uses according to market prices. Given that all of GDP is value added, incomes are value added, consumption is value added, profit’s actually a fairly useful little thing, yes.
And, well, carry on at your leisure. As the man doesn’t understand what neoliberalism is his critique is going to be weak tea, no?