Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics - Updated Edition

by Daniel Stedman Jones

How radical free-market ideas achieved mainstream dominance in postwar America and Britain

Based on archival research and interviews with leading participants in the movement, Masters of the Universe traces the ascendancy of neoliberalism from the academy of interwar Europe to supremacy under Reagan and Thatcher and in the decades since. Daniel Stedman Jones argues that there was nothing inevitable about the victory of free-market politics. Far from being the story of the simple triumph of right-wing ideas, the neoliberal breakthrough was contingent on the economic crises of the 1970s and the acceptance of the need for new policies by the political left. This edition includes a new foreword in which the author addresses the relationship between intellectual history and the history of politics and policy.

Fascinating, important, and timely, this is a book for anyone who wants to understand the history behind the Anglo-American love affair with the free market, as well as the origins of the current economic crisis.

Genres: Economics, History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook, Philosophy

440 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2012

Reviews

[Ned · Rating 5 out of 5]

Few subjects are as directly relevant to every person on earth as economics, from an individual’s purchasing power for basic necessities and investment choices for financial security, to macro-economics which influence elections, to wars and as a source of global political maelstroms. How did we arrive to where we are today? Much of it originated from, or was the result of, theories developed in response to various cataclysms, including the great depression of the 1930s, the second world war, and the more recent recession that cost the US economy alone many jobs and, by some estimates, approximately $20,000 to each man, woman and child in the U.S. I read this to understand, as a layperson, the subject better. It is remarkably relevant to our issues and debates today.

The causes of these cataclysms are much debated, but the economic theories which led to policy changes and election outcomes (initially in the US and UK) are generally divided into a “war” of ideas between “Keynsian” and the more eponymously names “neoliberalism” philosophy espoused and promoted predominantly by Hayek and, more recently, by Milton Friedman. It is a complex discussion, but this author delineates nicely and provides a (mostly) concise history of how these theories developed and were promoted. Today the role of government in regulation and control of the economy could not be more relevant, as our elections are often decided based on voter understanding of which candidate’s policy is more likely to produce the net best financial benefit. Notably, the election of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher represented a shock-wave shift from Keynesian (John Maynard Keynes) to neo-liberal ideology, although the author suggests it was more of a slow wave and even Jimmie Carter was a first practitioner. These effects are still felt today, as this shift is now going through another phase of discussion (some would say the ethics of neo-liberalism are so generally accepted and unquestioned as to be the silent creed underneath the policies of both major US political parties). To break this down in very simplistic terms: Keynes believed that factors influencing the economy are often random and un-knowable, therefore smart, educated (technocrat) people are collectively the best possible solution to create the policies that drive government interventions in order to avoid economic and geopolitical catastrophes; whereas those espousing neoliberalism suggest that there are immutable laws driving demand and supply which, if left alone by government intervention, would ultimately lead to the best possible outcomes for the maximum number of individuals. I would argue that both schools of thought are still employed today, though neo-liberalism is predominant, and western democracies are continuing to experiment with neo-liberalism as an idea whose outcomes remain uncertain, yet we fall back on more Keynesian approaches when high unemployment or events such as the economic trauma in the US started a decade ago cause enough pain. But what caused that disruption in our economy, and what should be done about it?

The author argues that the “horrors” of the 1930s (Europe, US) enabled Keynesian economic theory after WWII, but as it evolved into the civil rights movement in the US (and the more socialistic labor power in the UK), neo-liberalism ideas gained a foothold into the republican party, where it resides most prominently today. The other major driver was the anti-communist fears in full tilt. These two events, plus the relatively lesser trauma endured by the US during WW2 (vs the Europe), led to the nomination of Barry Goldwater. Though defeated, his ascent signaled the rising power of neo-liberalist thought, most stalwartly supported by William F. Buckley. In part this defined the American conservative movement we have today. The author conflates, but not excessively, the nascent racism and conservatism on social values (in response to the emergence of the baby boomers and their challenge to traditional norms) as further fuel to this fire. This came after a long run of Keynesian economics (i.e. more pronounced government control through monetary control of prices of goods and services or, demand management), which had served most western democracies after WWII in particular. This began to erode in the 1960s and 1970s with the emergence of inflation and high unemployment, ultimately leading to the elections of Thatcher and Reagan (as a 20 year old I was caught in the sway of his masterful oration and homey turns of phrase, such as “the most frightening thing anyone can hear is the government say we are here to help” – I paraphrase roughly). Thence came a overhaul of government (again, predominantly in the US and UK, initially) to a massive extent, where regulations were reduced and the role of government in regulating commerce reduced, leading to major international programs such as NAFTA. The culture embraced it (Family Ties, a television show, nicely framed the debate) and Wall Street gained power. There were always detractors (Reagan’s own David Stockman was chastised for his public criticism of the trickle down theory). Taxes on the wealthy went down in the US, corporation shake-ups occurred, and the world order was re-set. To greatly simplify, the lack of government regulations allowed certain corporations to succeed and those with capital (personal wealth) to greatly enrich themselves in the new world order. Ultimately it led to the use of goods produced by the cheapest possible labor in all parts of the world (often third), hence displacing a segment of western jobs typically filled by the middle class. The rich got much richer and the poor poorer, some greatly benefited, others suffered. Most believe the de-regulation of the banking system led to the 2008 recession, costing the US economy and causing the loss of many homes. The lack of oversight of who can lend to whom led to predatory lending and a very unhealthy business cycle that the US is just now emerging from. Friedman would say that the problem is not a lack of over-sight, but a weak stomach to let failed business ventures fail. I would say the human loss and toil is not humane when these enterprises collapse, and we need to find that balance. This is the power of those neo-liberal ideas which evolved from Adam Smith to Hayek and Mises many years earlier. If anything, Stedman-Jones illustrates the power of a beautiful idea allowed to germinate and develop. It is cautionary to me, where we should argue for our principles when they are ideas and before they become policy – regardless of the issue. And today, more than ever, we are debating the role of government in controlling or encouraging corporate activity and banking.

My view on this is that the economic theories known as Keynesian and neo-liberal, have evolved (some would say been compromised) from the originator’s intention. This is obviously necessary, as all policies become the gestalt of the current body politic and tend to be shaped in the image of the players in place. What I see as failure is when the principle becomes a religion, and its adherents drown out criticism and discourse. Unfortunately those divisions are sharper than ever today and social media has made the battle lines even clearer. Stedman-Jones does a fine job of balancing the views of the issues and (mostly, and transparently) keeping his own out of this treatise – it leaves the reader with a vast amount of information and history from which to draw their own conclusions. This is a tremendously researched, and, in sections, ponderous review of its subject. Therein lies its value, as I can’t imagine anyone would attempt a more thorough version of this topic. My only mild complaint is that it is UK / US focused and it does not talk enough about the global impact of neo-liberal ideas and their ensuing policies. On the other hand, this meticulously research, well written book was exactly what I needed to increase my understanding. It covered a time in which I became politically aware, so the history was familiar through a different lens and the author’s perspective held my interest.

This was dense reading for an amateur such as I, and far less entertaining than the movies Wall Street and The Big Short which reflect a certain ethos. I would be interested in the views of formally trained economists and practitioners after have read this.

[Lewis Weinstein]

There is a terrific review of this book in The Economist ... http://www.economist.com/node/21564533.

This looks like a perfect book to read after the election, whether we are celebrating Obama's victory and the continuation of progressive government, or conducting a funeral march for liberal politics under a Republican president beholden to the tea party wingnuts.

[Erik K · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here's the short version: it's the neoliberals' world; we're just living in it.

In this book, a writer for the Economist walks us through how the elite consensus that government should intervene on a regular basis to create demand in the economy changed in the 1970s and 80s. There were some concrete failures of the old New Deal regime. Some critiques were valid. Public housing was a mess, with direct government provision of housing for the poor creating concentrated slums with negative knock-on effects due to the concentration of poverty. It also used to be beyond the means of middle-class Americans to buy an airplane ticket across the country because prices were fixed by a government agency.

You could find more examples if you tried.

Along came "neoliberals"--a term that's terribly misused by the left to mostly mean "bad things I do not like that are not of the Left." Neoliberalism is actually a focus on monetary policy and deregulation of industry. There were some successes. But the bottom line is the Reagan-Thatcher era brought a severe decline in quality of life for the poor in the Anglo world. The prose is excellent, especially given the potentially dry nature of the topic.

The most important take away, though, is that neoliberalism was not controversial. It quickly became elite consensus. Every Democrat since Carter has embraced or failed to challenge its fundamental assumptions.

The state of the world today raises some questions that are beyond the scope of the book, but are worthwhile if you take the lessons of this book seriously. Is this thing working?

Let's set aside the right for a second, assume they are neoliberals forever. Let's also set aside economic justifications. You're nowhere if you are without a political justification, too.

Why should there still be consensus on the basic tenets of this philosophy after the 2008 crisis?

The political rationale for the technocratic, incremental approach of Clinton-Obama on regulation, for example, seems likely to have failed to build a *political* constituency for many signature policies to sustain them during the inevitable years the party regularly spends out of power.

Take one example: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of 2010, the law that made banks safer and gave unprecedented protections to consumers. It was extraordinarily complex, and nearly impossible to explain to the people it helped. Industry was sophisticated enough to know it was worth fighting, but the left never understood what it was doing to help. Who knows what the FOMC is? Or why it's important? Normal people sure don't. Larry Summers knows why it's important to bail out the financial system, but meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of homeowners were left in the dirt after foreclosure, with no bailout for them. Meanwhile, wage growth is stagnant.

The progressive left "Just break up the banks!" position, on the other hand, may be too blunt an instrument if you are a technocrat concerned with optimizing performance, but it at least justifies itself politically. So does bailing out homeowners. You screwed people, here is the punishment. You got screwed, here is your recompense. Beware the politician who tries to take it away.

Don't expect political questions like this in the book. It's already too big and time is short. But the book is amazing food for thought and you should read it. The just-the-facts approach the author takes may seem an odd choice at first, but there's a lot to get through, and he makes it pretty readable.

[Julian Haigh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating story of how an idea developed in totalitarian Austria, festered intellectually pan-Atlantic, and percolated through think tanks and the media to become implemented under Thatcher and Reagan administrations. Somewhat expectantly, the clarity slowly deteriorates through the book, bringing the emphasis on the transposition of ideas to political action. I found most interesting how the success of Friedman's monetarism was successful primarily as it was an alternate strategy to Keynesian demand management, at a time when confidence in the virtues of a full employment model was undermined by stagflation, rather than standing on its own merits. Hayak and Friedman are shown to be economic pastors speaking their 'new truths' through academic development of the Mont Pelerin Society and increasingly public advocacy.

[Andrew Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Focuses on neoliberalism and monetarism of second half of XX century. We'll researched.
Describes three phases of neoliberalism:
From 1920s until about 1950. - the term was embraced by the Austrian economists who sought to define the contours of a market-based economy. The term was chosen because it suggested more than a simple return of laissez-faire economics. t included Hayek, Mises, Wilhelm Ropke, Alexander Rustow. They would later form in 1947 the Mont Pelerin Society.
From 1950 until the free market ascendancy of Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s - Revolved around Chicago and Friedman
A third phase after 1980 was driven by the advance of an agenda of market liberalisation and fiscal discipline into development and trade policy.
As Paul Krugman put it in his retrospective assessment of the life and achievements of Milton Friedman, the “laissez-faire absolutism promoted by neoliberals like Friedman contributed to an intellectual climate in which faith in markets and disdain for government often trumps the evidence.”
Monetarism
Monetarism is an economic theory that focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability.
This theory draws its roots from two almost diametrically opposed ideas: the hard money policies that dominated monetary thinking in the late 19th century, and the monetary theories of John Maynard Keynes, who, working in the inter-war period during the failure of the restored gold standard, proposed a demand-driven model for money, which was the foundation of macroeconomics. While Keynes had focused on the value stability of currency, with the resulting panics based on an insufficient money supply leading to alternate currency and collapse, then Friedman focused on price stability, which is the equilibrium between supply and demand for money.

[Nir Haramati · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you wish to understand how neoliberalism became the predominant political economics theory having to go through the tired and highly demagogic Neo Progressive account of it, this is the best book to date.

[Ben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Divides neoliberalism into three periods: 1920s-1940s (Hayek, Popper, Vin Mises), 1950's-1980 (Friedman, Stigler), and 1980-2008 (global neoliberalism of the IMF and World Bank). Does a strong job of synthesizing recent historiographic trends on the topic, drawing from what he sees as the two main interpretive schools: intellectual and structural and emphasizing the transatlantic spread of the ideas of academic elites through think tanks to politicians and the public. He works a bit to recover the legacies of Hayek and Popper, who allowed for some role for government. He (like most) sees the 1970s as a series of crisis points, contingencies without which the neoliberalism may never have risen to power.

[James Voorhees · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 'Masters of the Universe' are the thinkers behind neoliberalism. The term is not merely an epithet for Jones. but a subject for serious analysis, a school of thought with both virtues and flaws.

He divides its history into three periods. The ideas were born in the first, influenced by the spread of totalitarianism and the New Deal. They spread in the second period as Hayek, Friedman, and their acolytes used think tanks and the media of the time to give them respectability and to make them available should the winds of policy change. That happened in the third, when failures of policies based on a reading of Keynes and a belief in the prowess of government failed. The mantle of neoliberal thought was taken up by Reagan and Thatcher, who put neoliberal tenets at the center of their approaches to policy.

Jones' account of neoliberalism is essential for those who wish to understand both this highly influential set of ideas and the roots of economic and social policy in both Britain and the United States over the last half-century.

[lcjfrc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stedman Jones gives a detailed, unbiased account of the development of neoliberalism, only to reveal himself as decidedly critical of its rationale in the end of his analysis. From the Mont Pelerin Society to the ultimate "language of profit, efficiency, and consumption" that has replaced that of "citizenship, solidarity, and service", he tracks down all actors of the neoliberal policies' creation and implementation. Stedman Jones's writing is clever and more often than not somehow oddly cordial, as when he concludes that "Keynes died prematurely in 1946, exhausted by his efforts to negotiate a loan from Americans".

"The irony of this brave new world was that it produced everything conservative politicians hated: insecurity, social, sexual and cultural changes, violence, and the collapse of community".

[AB Freeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

The idealisation of free markets arose as a response to the failure of Bretton Woods, the oil crises of the 1970s, and the 'collectivisation' economics of the New Deal and Great Society. It didn't have to happen. In this book, Stedman Jones chronicles neoliberalism's voyage from nascent idea to global hegemon, with biting commentary on the aftereffects, and a salient call for a return to rational policymaking.

4 stars. Incredibly detailed and rich with the details of neoliberal economic thought, the book may prove a bit challenging for the uninitiated reader of economics. Still, it provides a clear, cogent analysis of the circumstances which brought neoliberal ideas into the political and economic spotlight. Comprehensive.

[Jayden Davidson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating story of the commitment of early neoliberals to changing the “climate of opinion” in politics rather than just hashing their ideas academically. Could’ve done with more analysis of what specifically made certain ideas accessible and popular and how academic ideas were actually distilled to rhetoric, but on the whole, a great intellectual and political history.

[Matthew Simmons · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of Neoliberal thinkers.

[Gerry · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting perspective of how the Post World War 2 global settlement changed through economic crisis

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Learned a bit but the prose is wooden

[samuel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read for anyone who would finally like to find out what the fuck neoliberalism actually is!

[Jovany Agathe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hayek and Milton Friedman that societies with high levels of political freedom must also have high levels of economic freedom. In our judgment, the Hayek–Friedman hypothesis holds up fairly well to historical scrutiny. Using data on economic and political freedom for a sample of up to 123 nations back as far as 1970, we find relatively few instances of societies combining relatively high political freedom without relatively high levels of economic freedom. In addition, we find that these cases are diminishing over time. Finally, we examine several cases of countries on different economic and political freedom journeys.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jones describes how conservative thinkers developed thought that influenced economic policy from the 1970s until about 2008. What's interesting is that this way of thinking had a strong influence on both the Left and the Right. The book is a history of how pro free market policies started in the heads of academic economists and philosophers and became mainstream between the 1930s and the 1980s. It began as a way to counter the New Deal.

Jones equates neoliberalism with the idea that free market policies are a panacea. I associate neoliberalism with the rich wanting to keep the rules that make them richer. That means they want unfair rules to exist whether they are free market or not. Jones also blames neoliberalism for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the 2007-2008 crisis. For me that's a stretch. Money and banking have had strong ties to the government since the creation of the Federal Reserve. There were plenty of regulatory bodies in place in 2008. They just weren't effective. I vehemently disagree that 2007-2008 represented a failure of markets. If markets failed, then why were the problems largely concentrated in the financial sector? Where were all the market failures on Main St?

Jones declares a housing market failure when someone can't afford a place to live. Under that logic, there's a big private plane and yacht market crisis going on right now too.

While I disagree with some of Jones' conclusions, this is a wonderful story of how ideas go from academia into the mainstream through think tanks and other media. It also goes through how these ideas get distorted through politics and through time. How will new ideas spread in today's world of the Internet?

[Bob Duke · Rating 4 out of 5]

A necessary read for those who wish to understand discussions about politics and economics. The book gives the history of neoliberalism and how it has evolved over time. It explains how Hayek learnt from the Fabians and set up the Mount Pelerin Society to advance neoliberal ideas and when Keynesian orthodoxy seemed not to be working it was ready the solution. In this way Jimmy Carter in the US and James Callaghan in the UK abandoned Keynes. The revolution was already in full swing when Ronald Reagan started to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street. It explains how neoliberalism in its earliest manifestation proposed something more than a night-watchman state. The state did not just stay out of markets but had the responsibility of creating the conditions for markets to function effectively but to intervene or regulate when necessary. This would be an anathema to many today who espouse neo-liberalism. The book is critical of neo-liberalism and particularly how it has come to be applied in its latest manifestation.

[Orion · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly a formidable conglomeration of first-party sources that map the trajectory of the success of neoliberal policies in taking over western (and even global) ideology. Despite the apotheosis of neoliberalism, particularly in the wake of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, much of the world still has a strange belief in this false god, a sort of Neoliberal Realism. If the fact that neoliberalism seems like a goof that was bought into foolishly and unthinkingly, or that it was a reactionary movement foisted onto the powerless populous, this book will help you see through a bit of the fog that was the growth of neoliberalism. The truth is, it was a bit of a goof, and it was a bit of an authoritarian push, and it all went very wrong in the end (and continues to do so). But it was much more subtle and lengthy than that.

This book isn't a critique or a celebration of neoliberalism. It's just an attempt at charting the course neoliberalism has taken in becoming the dominant economic ideology of the world of the 21st century.

[Plamen Miltenoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

p. 9 Neoliberalism had the added appeal of appearing at one with traditions and myths of American individualism. Support for neoliberal policies from politicians such as Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan did not mean they thought of themselves as neoliberal. In the American context, neoliberal ideas usually crept in under the radar, subsumed under the banner of rugged individualism or libertarianism, a movement distinct from, though overlapping with, conservatism. These two traditions were expertly fused with other forms of social and religious conservatism by Reagan. An important dimension of this phase of the history of neoliberalism was, therefore, how politically palatable, mainly economic neoliberal policy prescriptions combined with forms of social and cultural conservatism reacting strongly to 1960s liberal permissiveness. It was a combination that ultimately attracted policy-makers and the public in the US after 1968

[Thomas Isern · Rating 4 out of 5]

The point of view of the author unfolds subtly, but inexorably. His aim is, first, to argue for the importance of ideas, as generated by the neoliberal economists following the Second World War. He then shows how these ideas crossed over into politics, with think tanks playing an important role. He gives the neoliberals their full due, but in the end, questions the effects of their ideas on political discourse and action, arguing that they have assumed a dogmatic aspect inappropriate for either intellectual discourse or political action. (My take on all this is that the neoliberals were great at diagnosis, not so good at prescription.) There is one deficiency that, if remedied, would make the argument of the book better. Jones takes neoliberal dogmatism to task, but does not do the same for Keynesian dogmatism. If he had, then his book would feel more evenhanded.

[Richard Sansing · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-researched study of how the economic policies pursued by the Reagan Administration and Thatcher governments were based on many years of intellectual efforts by Friedman, Hayek and others. Correctly notes that some of the early efforts toward deregulation began under Democrats (airline deregulation started under Carter) and continued under Democrats (NAFTA was concluded under Clinton.)

Concluding chapters are an odd screed against much of the progress that has occurred over the last 50 years. Were we really better off when airlines such as Braniff and Eastern Airlines were operating and Southwest and Jet Blue were not?

[Fred Kohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was not what I was expecting. Nevertheless, I learned a great deal. I was expecting a book on economics; what I got was more of a history lesson. At times I wish the material had been organized in a different manner. I found the jumping back and forth between events in England and the U.S. somewhat confusing. If you have an interest in history, especially the history of economic ideas, this would be a good book to read.

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a really good read whether or not you agree with the authors conclusions. It's definitely all about the journey and not so much the ultimate destination in my humble opinion . I learned a lot about a very interesting topic and have some other very good books on my to read list thanks to Daniel and the Masters of the Universe !