Talk:Chicago school

	This Economics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Reads like a puff piece. Full of factual inaccuracies

(create an archive)

Last section

The last section of this article should get axed, or altered, as much of the information just beats on a hypothesis that is currently held as neither proven or disproved among economists, and actually quite useful in understanding what markets would do in the absence of frictions, despite protestations to the contrary. β=(X′X)⁻¹X′Y 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite away, my good man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Neoliberalism was NOT the cause of the Chilean 1982 crisis

The article seemed to go in the way that, because Chile got into this 1982 seven years after implementing it's neoliberal policies it must be the cause of it (non causa pro causa etc). This is simply wrong, as it had more to do with the historical context experienced by almost every latin american country (Latin American Debt Crisis). Most countries went into a deep crisis regardless of their economic policies, as evidenced by Peru and Uruguay getting into even worse crisis than Chile despite not having neoliberal policies. Chile even recovered faster than those two countries, and Chile never really got rid off their neoliberal policies even to this day (except during the height of the crisis itself of course) and now it ranks the highest from all the latin american countries in most social and economic measures. The sources for all of this are the ones I used before in the article, so just look at the article history to find them or just ask me and I can provide them. I hope this is good enough to un-protect the article and turn it back to where I left it. YellowJelly (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind presenting your sources here, too? Maybe with some reasoning on how you think they fit into the picture? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Graph comparing GDP growth between Chile, Peru and Uruguay using data from the World Bank: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CHL:PER:URY&ifdim=region&tstart=20660400000&tend=651812400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false

Anything else needed? YellowJelly (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all: the Angelfire link contains malware, so I removed that.

Secondly, how do you intend we read that graph? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if Neoliberalism was not the cause of the 1982 crisis it also didn't prevent it. And Chile is one of the most unequal countries in terms of income and wealth distribution in an already unequal continent. Of course you will probably claim income inequality on a degree as observed in Chile is desirable, just like you think political massacres of accused "terrorists" are a legitimate way to govern. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The graph is pretty simple, by 1982 and 1983 those three countries all had gdp growths of less than minus ten percent.

Yes, neoliberalism didn't prevent the crisis, no south american country prevented the crisis as far as I'm aware of, so I fail to see how that's a point against neoliberalism.

Yes, Chile is one of the most unequal countries in south america, even then, countries like Colombia and Brazil (and quite a few center-american countries) have far more inequality than Chile (if measured by the Gini Index), when measured inequality by the differences between quintiles (how much the top 20% earns when compared to the bottom 20%) Chile is still not the most unequal of the continent with Bolivia, Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, and the whole lot of center-american countries being all more unequal than Chile. Some other things to consider is the poverty in Chile (second lowest after Uruguay), and highest social mobility of the continent Chile: Highest social mobility of south america, p. 124. If inequality is the price we pay for higher social and economic measures, then I will gladly accept it, but Chile seems to indicate that this doesn't have to be the case. There is always room for improvement, of course.

Like I told you before, I don't think "massacring" terrorists are a good way to govern, and I'm glad that period is over, but it was either kill them or wait for them to kill you. Can you agree on that conclusion at least? YellowJelly (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

On your last sentence I answer only: False dilemma another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it really a false dilema? What alternative do you propose? I'm genuinely curious at knowing your answer. What about the rest of what I wrote? Regarding the protected article, can it be put down again? Thank you.YellowJelly (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The protection on the article will stay up for a few days while we all talk this over. The discussion is just beginning. Thank you for understanding. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything else to say? The chilean crisis of 1982 was caused by the latin american debt crisis, which affected not only Chile but almost every other latin american country, so saying that neoliberalism was the cause of the crisis is a clear example of the non causa pro causa fallacy. The page should go unprotected right now, otherwise it's just arbitrarily blocking facts and points of views you don't agree with. Thank you. YellowJelly (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't appear to account for Chile's 1975 low point. Also, another false dilemma from you. Keeping the page protected for a few more days while we all discuss things further is not "arbitrarily blocking facts and points of views you don't agree with" in any sense whatsoever. In fact, you've been asked multiple times to provide as much facts and contrarian points of view as you can muster onto this very talk page. So please, make sure to read your own text and make sure it adds up before pressing Save page next time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The neoliberal policies were implemented during 1975, but the country was already going down since 1970-1971. Even then, this is moving goalposts by now, as the original claim was regarding the 1982 crisis. I have provided all the facts necessary, if you need any more, just tell me. --YellowJelly (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

You claim the only alternatives were to summarily round up and execute all "terrorists" without establishing whether any of them were guilty of anything. And you claim that it would have been inevitable that they would have gone on to kill had this not been done. Not only do you not provide any evidence for either of your claims - and frankly they sound quite fascist, what with rounding up and murdering a section of the population - you also seem to think jails don't exist and custody during the course of a criminal trial are an invention of evil communist apologists. Look, if there really were left wing political assassinations in Chile, they should have been processed by the courts with the standards of law and order. The criminal justice system is quite apt at dealing with murder and the likeliness of repeat offenses is very low, even in countries where some murderers get out after twenty years or so. Your proposal on the other hand sounds a bit like Trump's magical crime strategy that makes one shudder at the exact "how" of it being implemented. And screaming "censorship" while condoning Pinochet is a bit rich, isn't it? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1) Proof that said political groups had already killed political oponents in the past: p. 151, 11 August 1970, members of the VOP kill Luis Fuentes Pineda, among many other crimes (http://hommodolars.org/web/IMG/pdf/VOP-Historiadeunaguerrillaolvidada.pdf)

2) Proof that said the MIR refused peaceful ways to achieve socialism and opting instead for an armed revolution: (VII, https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_Principios_del_MIR)

Does it follow now from 1) and 2) that they were actually dangerous and that waiting for a proper judgement was not possible considering the country was in the verge of a civil war and they could kill way more political opponents?

3) Politicide is not a typical trait of fascism. You might as well say Stalin was a fascist by that logic.

4) Please don't use strawmans against me. I think custody during the course of a criminal trial is a good thing to society, but considering the historical context it was not possible for the people mentioned above. The country was on the verge of total chaos and something had to be done about it.

5) Don't compare me to Trump.

6) I hope you can understand my point of view, not necessarily share it, as to why I think what happened was the lesser evil. I'm not an "evil fascist", I'm only trying to argue for what was the best decision to take. --YellowJelly (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Being in love with "law and order" is indeed a fascist trait. And of course political paranoia is not necessarily fascist. Though all fascist states have it to a greater rather than lesser degree. Also, the political right in Chile was also going on a killing spree in the early 1970s even prior to Pinochet's coup (which you also seem to excuse despite it being political violence and murder). By your logic should Pinochet have been killed without a trial? After all the Chilean right (and the CIA) are the most likely subjects in the killing of René Schneider. And if the leftist political violence does not get the benefit of due process, why should Pinochet? And whatever objections you now raise might make you appreciate why we went from blood revenge to due process. The latter simply works better long term, even if sometimes a guilty person walks and on even more rare occasions an innocent person hangs. The last of course being a good reason to oppose the death penalty. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the simmering chaos in Chile prior to the coup was deliberately being fanned by the CIA as amply documented in the voluminous chapter on Chile prior to and during the coup in Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. The direct order from Nixon and Kissinger was recorded by then CIA director Jesse Helms as "Make the economy scream" (p. 357). Thus, the growing paranoia of the Allende regime brings to mind the old adage "just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you." ScepticWombat (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

1) I'm not in love with "law and order", you are just playing the fascist version of argumentum ad hitlerum now. Every democratic country has law and order, does that mean they are all fascist? Come on... Pinochet was a dictator, but he was not a fascist.

2) I'm not excusing the killings by the political right. However, they didn't go into a killing spree (unlike the left-wing terrorist groups) although they did kill Rene as you just mentioned.

3) Pinochet shouldn't have been killed at the end of his government, he should have been put on trial. Why not just kill him or why not trial for the terrorist groups? Because of the historical context. It was simply not possible to give those terrorists a fair judgement. The country was on the verge of a civil war, etc. On the contrary, the 1990s were rather stable (altough despite the dictatorship having ended, those left-wing terrorist groups killed yet another man, Jaime Guzman), so it was possible to trial both the right and the left, with varying degrees of success (Pinochet dying before the trials, left-wing terrorist groups escaping from prison).

4) Yes, I'm aware of that quote. However, despite the Nixon saying that he wanted "the economy to scream" doesn't mean he actually did something about it. Yes, they did fund some political programs, but the economy was left alone, and the political programs were indeed praised by an important group of Chileans (as evidenced by the cacerolazos or the people throwing rice at the military as a sign of calling them chickens for not wanting to overthrow the government).

5) Do you think I have good intentions when I get into this argument? Or do you think I'm a commie hater or something? I'm just curious to know how you perceive. Also, if you don't mind me asking, how would you describe your political orientation? Thank you. --YellowJelly (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As regards 4), Weiner's book mentions that most of a $10 million allocated to the Chile operation were spent to destabilise Chile economically and politically (p. 365) and declassified documents tell the same story (e.g. some in this this batch, specifically the State Department memo of December 4th, 1970 and the NSC memo of November 9th, 1970). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to fund some political programs, but the economy remained untouched by the CIA. In what way did those $10 millions affect the economy? YellowJelly (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that the CIA money's main impact was through "perception management" (i.e. propaganda) while the main blows to the Chilean economy were being delivered directly from Washington through constraints placed on Chile's access to international finance, withdrawal of aid etc (see the original documents above). ScepticWombat (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there was most likely quite a big deal of propaganda, but the economy itself remained untouched. It's not the same thing wanting to "make the economy scream" than actually doing it. It wasn't even necessary to intervene in the economy to make it scream on the first place it seems :P ^{— Unsigned, by: YellowJelly / talk / contribs}

Exactly the type of statement that needs to be backed up by sources. Also, plz don't forget to sign. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the burden of proof is not on me, but on the one making the claim that USA intervened in the Chilean economy. The other guy is the one who should back up his sources. --YellowJelly (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean, basic high school stuff, like Operation Condor and the relevant segments of United States intervention in Chile, U.S. involvement in the coup d'état and the dictatorship's relationship with the U.S.? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

None of those were an intervention in the Chilean economy, the issue we were arguing about before. I'm not denying those events, but they are not pertinent to the discussion we are having right now. Some better reading comprehension is needed, huh? --YellowJelly (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because the following quote...

The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.[81]

The U.S. was significantly friendlier with Pinochet than it had been with Allende, and continued to give the junta substantial economic support between the years 1973–79, while simultaneously expressing opposition to the junta's repression in international forums such as the United Nations. The U.S. went beyond verbal condemnation in 1976, after the murder of Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C., when it placed an embargo on arms sales to Chile that remained in effect until the restoration of democracy in 1989. Presumably, with international concerns over Chilean internal repression and previous American hostility and intervention regarding the Allende government, the U.S. did not want to be seen as an accomplice in the junta's "security" activities. Prominent U.S. allies Britain, France, and West Germany did not block arms sales to Pinochet, benefitting from the lack of American competition.[82]

...clearly does not indicate any economic involvement? It's in one of the links I already gave you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this thing has numerous economic links as well. It's the United States senate report (1975) titled "Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Still no intervention in the chilean economy. Yes, they did offer some money to coup related things, but none of that was a direct intervention in the economy during Allende's government. You also linked a lot of issues that had nothing to do with economic intervention like the Condor Operation. Now, as a separate issue, you claim the U.S. offered financial aid towards the coup, but Cuba did the same thing towards aiding a revolution by giving way crates filled with weapons (including the own weapon Allende used to kill himself) (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_bultos_cubanos)--YellowJelly (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘"The other guy" did provide sources, incl. citations of the original documents linked to above. Specifically withdrawal of aid and preventing Chilean access to international finance. If you want extra sources, here's one which specifically mentions sabotage of railroads and electricity plants. And the State Department has a huge collection of documents on US involvement with Chile, including this one in which Kissinger states "The consensus around this town and the hemisphere appears to be that our policy has been highly successful. Allende certainly is in deep economic trouble (see Analysis paper)." It also continues with some explicit mechanisms: "US Objective. We want: 1) a rescheduling agreement that gives Chile the least possible debt relief; 2) one that forces the Allende regime to bear full responsibility for its own failures; 3) the largest repayment possible of debts owed to US companies; 4) a commitment that will give the best chance that our companies will receive adequate repayment for seized properties; 5) an agreement that avoids lengthy default or possible repudiation of debts to US official and private creditors." ScepticWombat (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he did provide some sources, but sources not related to the argument we were having. Operation Condor has nothing to do with the U.S. intervention in the chilean economy. The source you mention on the railroads etc is the first one to actually deal with this issue. While I have my doubts about the authenticity of the events, I will take them as facts. The other sources only speak about the intentions of intervening in the economy, but make no mention towards the measures they actually took towards intervening in the economy. By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what would your political views be? --YellowJelly (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd really love to see a debate between YellowJelly and the BoN on the Che talk page. Unfortunately someone would have to translate. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 14:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that we have Latin American extremists from both sides of the spectrum posting right now. Who knows maybe they would find common ground? One particular depravity both Che and Pinochet had was with children: one murdered then and the other stole them. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an extremist. If anything, I lean towards the center-right political spectrum from my country (altough in european politics, I could lean towards the center-left). The case of stolen babies was only one, which was not related to Pinochet for any reason other than happening during his government. I will reply to the other comment when I get enough time. By the way, it's seriously exhausting that you guys are assuming I'm some kind of "evil Pinochet worshiper". Regarding the Che page, I'm not claiming of Pinochet as "the liberator of the country etc" unlike the other guy on that talk page is doing. One of my justifications for the Pinochet regime is quite simply an utilitarian view on killing to save far more lives. Feel free to disagree with utilitarian philosophy or the conclusions drawn from the premises, but please don't assume I'm some evil Pinochet worshiper. --YellowJelly (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You may call it utilitarianism, but your contention rest on some rather dubious premises, incl. what-if counter factual history. You're essentially assuming that a continued Allende regime would have led to an even greater slaughter than Pinochet's dictatorship. So, since you're so eager for sources, how about adding some of your own to back up this guesstimate?

Also, your argument sounds very much like Pinochet apologetics to me, as it contrasts the hypothetical consequences of a continued Allende regime with the very well documented crimes of the Pinochet regime. It's the defence of any and every strong man, caudillo and dictator throughout history: "Without me there would have been (even more) chaos and slaughter."

I could easily cook up a similar defence of Mao or Chiang Kai-shek in China by assuming that either the corrupt and inefficient Kuomintang would have left China open to a Russian invasion/infiltration (Mao) or that continued warlordism would have similar serious consequences (Chiang) and thus claim that either the success of Chiang or Mao was actually a good result from the point of view of a utilitarian cost/benefit analysis. The problem is that this would also compare real lives lost with hypothetical ills possibly avoided in a very speculative version of the ends justifying the means which is guesswork at best and out and out apologetics at worst. Hell, I could go quasi-Godwin and claim that the Holocaust was a good "mental innoculation" against genocide and may have prevented even larger genocides, or that WWII was a good thing because it occurred just before the nuclear age and had it been postponed, it might have involved widespread use of nuclear weapons by several combatants.

Actually, I don't even have to invent scenarios, because just slapping the term utilitarian onto tankie Stalin apologetics yields a similar argument, just with bigger body counts, i.e. that the massive costs in human lives and misery of the Stalin regime were "well spent" because they prevented even greater losses that would have followed from a Nazi victory in WWII (and, like your cost/benefit analysis of Pinochet, this also assumes that similar results couldn't have been attained by a less bloody approach).

Once you start speculating and weighing up hypotheticals against actualities in your cost/benefit analyses, you can pretty much get any result you want by adding to or subtracting from the hypothetical counter factual body count in your alternative scenario. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you could indeed justify almost everything that way, but in some cases the "utilitarian" course of action is indeed the most utilitarian way to do things. I think it was for the best. Maybe Tankies could argue the same, but I wouldn't agree with them. I already explained some of my reasoning on why it was most likely for the better, those reasons are the number of attempted and planned coups (at least two before Pinochet's and one more planned, including public support for those coups), the increasing risk of a civil war (Cuba sending weapons to Chile, graffiti warnings for a civil war, increasing political polarization, violent disputes between people of opposing political views), both right and left wing extremist groups (FNPL arguing for their own coup who had already killed someone; MIR and VOP who argued for violent revolution who had already killed several), sinking real wages, increasing inflation, decreasing GDP. Based on this, it's very reasonable to expect a civil war with more than 3'000 deaths (the amount estimated "disappeared" during Pinochet's 17 year long regime). The evidence of this could be the chilean civil war of 1891 which brough around 10'000 deaths in just a single year. According to this, you can disagree on the utilitarian philosophy or the conclusions drawn from those facts to argue the coup was worse than a non-coup. That's up to you, but I hope you can understand why I think this way and think of my position as reasonable even if you disagree. Thank you. --YellowJelly (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Conservatism ??

The only value Chicago School aims for is economic liberalism, an idea derived from classical liberalism. There is no evidence that they are conservatives in the context of international politics.

The term fiscal-conservatism is a term used in the United States, and is not often used in other regions.--Umaru16 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Until the 20th century, the United States had ruled out socialist political forces that were more left-wing than social liberalism, and social liberals had almost monopolized the term "liberal." As a result, right-liberals have been called "conservatives" in the United States. Unlike in the past, however, social democracy or socialism is no longer an rejected ideology in the United States. I think the terms of political forces deeply related to politics and economy around the world should meet international standards.--Umaru16 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, this argument again. A bit weaker here though. How much influence, internationally, did the Chicago school have? The issue here is the main people I am aware of that were influenced by this school, apart from asshat dictators, were Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. And these two were called "conservative" in their respective countries. If you know of a politician called "liberal" or "left" that embraced the school, great, but I can't think of one. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You have to distinguish between liberalism and the left-wing. American liberalism is left-wing because it means social liberalism. In the United States, classical liberalism or conservative liberalism is just called conservatism. Social liberalism (American liberalism) is a left-wing ideology, but ALL forms of liberalism itself is not a left-wing ideology. --Umaru16 (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, Reagan and Thatcher are conservatives. But you have to remember that they were cultural conservatives. This article is related to mainstream economics. Chicago school and cultural conservatism are not directly related.--Umaru16 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Let me give you another example. We call Keynes a social liberal. However, Keynesian economics has supporters among social democrats and even democratic socialists. Then, do you think it is right to refer to Keynes as a socialist? With the same logic, I don't think the Chicago school is conservative. The concepts of liberalism and conservatism in the United States are really stupid concepts that only work in the United States. Progressives in Democrats are close to social democrats, and classical liberals are close to Blue Dogs and Rockefeller Republicans. The Chicago School has something to do with Milton Friedman, who referred to himself as a classical liberal rather than a conservative.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You are coming from the position that Thatcher and Reagan had zero economic policies? That's... strange. At any rate, it depends on what "the mob" thinks. But to me this is more of an Anglosphere (especially US) vs. international argument. However, since this article is about the economic school only, we can probably leave the label off (there is no "conservative" economic school that I know of, this term is more a political label, which shouldn't apply to a pure economic discussion). Of course, I would see much less problem adding "conservative" to any Chicago schooler who explicitly aligned with conservative politicians (Milton Friedman for instance would be an interesting case to debate in this regard...). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I admit that the economic policies of Thatcher and Reagan were influenced by the Chicago school. However, even if democratic socialism is influenced by the Keynesian school, the Keynesian school cannot be classified as a socialist category. The Chicago school cannot be classified as conservative category. This is my view. Modern economics consists only of liberalism in a pure sense. Liberarianism is also a sub-ideology of liberalism.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Liberalism in the sense used in United Kingdom and Australia is probably closer to Europe than North America. The Australian Liberal Party or Gladstone-liberalism will be representative. Winston Churchill is also a liberal in the context of British politics, and David Cameron is a liberal.--Umaru16 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The Australian Liberal Party is a conservative party. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

ALP is a (classical) liberal party. Is there any evidence that ALP is not a liberal party? Just because you're not liberal in the context of American politics doesn't really mean you're not liberal. --Umaru16 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not American. People I know who live in Australia call it a conservative party. It's the most right-wing mainstream party in the country, the equivalent of the Conservatives here in the UK. The only way it could possibly not be 'conservative' would be if you insisted on using a proprietary definition of conservative that bears no relation to its common usage in politics in Australia or most of the rest of the world. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said that ALP is not a conservative party. In Australia, the term liberalism is not used in the same way as in the United States.--Umaru16 (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No-one would describe the Liberal (capital-L) Party as liberal (small-l), the same way no-one would describe the Conservative Party as liberal (small-l). Unless, as I said, they're using their own weird definition of liberal that does not bear much resemblance to either its currently accepted common use or its historical one. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Queex classical liberalism is closer to Conservatism than to "modern" liberalism, even conservatives like Roger Scruton acknowledge this. I agree that we should remove the category, but the entire article is an eyesore. The categories are far from being the worst parte of this thing. GeeJayK (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the concept of modern liberalism itself is generally close to the American concept. This is because in Europe, modern liberalism simply does not mean social liberalism. Modern liberalism in Europe will be close to classical liberalism in the context of American politics. Many regions distinguish between "conservatism" and "right-wing liberalism".--Umaru16 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Conservatism and classical liberalism cannot be easily distinguished in the United States. Because the founding ideology of the United States was classical liberalism, it is the classical liberal philosophy that is deeply rooted in the American conservative movement. However, most countries around the world have suffered from aristocrats, feudalism, traditionalism, and conservative dictatorship, so the concept of American liberalism cannot be applied. Modern liberalism in the United States means social liberalism and progressivism(social democracy). It is a concept that is not used at all in Europe, Asiana, and Latin America. Many worlds, except North America, have roots in past aristocrats, feudalism, traditionalism, and conservative dictatorships, but distinguish between somewhat moderate or communalistic center-right moderate "conservative" and center-right classical/conservative "liberalism". The latter is more economically right-wing than the former, but socially more progressive. If classical liberalism is conservative, social liberalism should be considered socialist. I basically think conservatism and right-wing liberalism should be distinguished. Since the United States did not suffer from aristocracy, feudalism, traditionalism, and conservative dictatorship, American conservatism is basically close to conservatism created in modern times. In Europe, Asia, and Latin America, the concept of conservatism in the United States is difficult to apply. --Umaru16 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In most regions, 'modern' liberalism is defined as: "The doctrine of liberalism considers personal freedom to be the most important goal. In particular it favours free markets, free trade, limited governments, low taxes and private property (economic liberalism) as well as equality for all citizens under the law, civil rights, secularism and freedom of speech, press and religion.". # --Umaru16 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That sentence is the most important. The concept of "liberalism" always overlooks this in countries of culture affected by the United States or the United States. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren are absolutely not liberal. But Elizabeth Warren is considered a liberal in the American political context.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The goals of liberals in most countries, including Europe, will be very different from those of liberals in the United States and Some Anglo-American countries. Free markets, Limited governments and Cultural progressivism are the core values of liberalism.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This may be called classical liberalism in the United States, but modern liberalism in Europe and Latin America means this. Academically, liberalism refers to an ideology that shows economic right-wing and cultural left-wing tendencies. Naturally, libertarianism in the United States also belongs to liberalism in the international political context.--Umaru16 (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Queex I don't know what it means to have a general usage that is currently being accepted. Due to the influence of the United States, the term "liberalism" has often meant "social liberalism" in the British and American countries. However, ALP is more of a liberalism in a historical sense. Historically, liberalism was originally the ideology of capitalists and supported the replacement of aristocratic conservatism with meritistic capitalism. I don't think Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is really a liberal party. However, the Australian Liberal Party clearly belongs to liberalism in the context of European politics. --Umaru16 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

conclusion

Anyway, Chicago School is "liberal" in the international political context, but it will not be "liberal" in the American political context. I think it's enough to leave only one category called Libertarianism in the Chicago School article. What do you all think?--Umaru16 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Liberal can refer to liberal economics, liberal democracy, liberal international relations, or social liberalism. Staying in the liberalism category is fine. Plutocow (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

That's right. I agree with that opinion. Then I'll keep the classical liberalism category!--Umaru16 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)