What do you think?
Rate this book
Quarterly Essay #70
Dead Right: How Neoliberalism Ate Itself and What Comes Next
How did the big banks get away with so much for so long? Why are so many aged-care residents malnourished? And when did arms manufacturers start sponsoring the Australian War Memorial?
In this passionate essay, Richard Denniss explores what neoliberalism has done to Australian society. For decades, we have been led to believe that the private sector does everything better, that governments can't afford to provide the high-quality services they once did, but that security and prosperity for all are just around the corner. In fact, Australians are now less equal, millions of workers have no sick leave or paid holidays, and housing is unaffordable for many. Deregulation, privatisation and trickle-down economics have, we are told, delivered us twenty-seven years of growth ... but to what end?
In Dead Right, Denniss looks at ways to renew our democracy and discusses everything from the fragmenting Coalition to an idea of the national interest that goes beyond economics.
"Neoliberalism, the catch-all term for all things small government, has been the ideal cloak behind which to conceal enormous shifts in Australia's wealth and culture ... Over the past thirty years, the language, ideas and policies of neoliberalism have transformed our economy and, more importantly, our culture."
Richard Denniss, Dead Right
In this passionate essay, Richard Denniss explores what neoliberalism has done to Australian society. For decades, we have been led to believe that the private sector does everything better, that governments can't afford to provide the high-quality services they once did, but that security and prosperity for all are just around the corner. In fact, Australians are now less equal, millions of workers have no sick leave or paid holidays, and housing is unaffordable for many. Deregulation, privatisation and trickle-down economics have, we are told, delivered us twenty-seven years of growth ... but to what end?
In Dead Right, Denniss looks at ways to renew our democracy and discusses everything from the fragmenting Coalition to an idea of the national interest that goes beyond economics.
"Neoliberalism, the catch-all term for all things small government, has been the ideal cloak behind which to conceal enormous shifts in Australia's wealth and culture ... Over the past thirty years, the language, ideas and policies of neoliberalism have transformed our economy and, more importantly, our culture."
Richard Denniss, Dead Right
228 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 4, 2018
38 people are currently reading
340 people want to read
About the author
Richard Denniss
12 books44 followersRichard Denniss is the Chief Economist and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He is a prominent Australian economist, author and public policy commentator, and a former Adjunct Associate Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. Dr Denniss was described by Mark Kenny in the Sydney Morning Herald as "a constant thorn in the side of politicians on both sides due to his habit of skewering dodgy economic justifications for policy".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 28, 2021
Right at the start of this he mentions something I’d never quite thought about. In Australia we have an organisation called the Surf Life Saving, it’s a pretty useless name for an organisation, since there is no surprise at all in what it does. Unlike the name of one of our banks – Westpac, which I guess could be anything at all. The Surf Life Saving Australia run a rescue helicopter service. It is known as the Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter Service. As the author here says, it isn’t clear how much Westpac pays Surf Life Saving Australia to run their helicopter. What is clear is that for the organisation as a whole government grants accounted for about 40% of their funds. Social enterprises for about another third. I’m assuming the Westpac contribution would be in ‘sponsorships’ and that Westpac isn’t the only sponsor. That accounts for 10% of the total. As the author also says, in one of the ads for the helicopter Westpac says that they rescue people even if they are not customers of their bank. Given at least 90% of the funding for the helicopter doesn’t come from the bank, that’s probably a good thing and they should continue to rescue the people who actually do fund the damn thing.
This essay focuses on the impact to our lives (focused on Australia, but with instances from elsewhere throughout) brought about by the introduction of neoliberal policies since the 1980s. It is a tale of woe. It is a tale of the destruction of many core democratic institutions, the degradation of others, and the gross transfer of wealth from the many to the few. This was first published in 2018 – it is clear the author assumed that the ALP were about to win government and to begin implementing policies that might have made Australia fairer. Unfortunately, like the rest of us, he underestimated the power of the Murdoch press to fan lies and distortions. It had successfully done much the same in the US with the election of Trump (and his quite near recent re-election) and twice achieved the same thing in the UK with Brexit. Still, futures are notoriously difficult to predict, so he can’t be held entirely responsible.
I’ve encouraged one of my daughters to read this – if you live in Australia, you really should read it too. It will make you angry, but hopefully it will also help you to not fall for the big lies we are so often told. He makes a lovely point that the politicians on the right have spent decades convincing everyone that politicians are not to be trusted. It is an important lesson.
There are alternatives to what has become the status quo – many of those alternatives existed before the neoliberal turn – but as he makes clear, neoliberal ‘efficiency’ is directly opposed to increased democratic oversight and popular participation. The lesson, then, is to seek to increase both as perhaps the best way to undermine the shift across the world to authoritarian regimes.
This essay focuses on the impact to our lives (focused on Australia, but with instances from elsewhere throughout) brought about by the introduction of neoliberal policies since the 1980s. It is a tale of woe. It is a tale of the destruction of many core democratic institutions, the degradation of others, and the gross transfer of wealth from the many to the few. This was first published in 2018 – it is clear the author assumed that the ALP were about to win government and to begin implementing policies that might have made Australia fairer. Unfortunately, like the rest of us, he underestimated the power of the Murdoch press to fan lies and distortions. It had successfully done much the same in the US with the election of Trump (and his quite near recent re-election) and twice achieved the same thing in the UK with Brexit. Still, futures are notoriously difficult to predict, so he can’t be held entirely responsible.
I’ve encouraged one of my daughters to read this – if you live in Australia, you really should read it too. It will make you angry, but hopefully it will also help you to not fall for the big lies we are so often told. He makes a lovely point that the politicians on the right have spent decades convincing everyone that politicians are not to be trusted. It is an important lesson.
There are alternatives to what has become the status quo – many of those alternatives existed before the neoliberal turn – but as he makes clear, neoliberal ‘efficiency’ is directly opposed to increased democratic oversight and popular participation. The lesson, then, is to seek to increase both as perhaps the best way to undermine the shift across the world to authoritarian regimes.
June 24, 2018
Yes, yes, yes! An excellent essay that will get you angry at how our current politicians have failed to fulfil their obligations and truly honour their oath of office. It also arms the reader, of any political persuasion, with the wherewithal to demand more of their local member and other elected representatives.
June 20, 2018
Are Australia’s so-called economic debates one giant category error? Richard Denniss’s answer is ‘yes’. He mocks our entire mode of discussion when we argue about, say, whether the Australian economy ‘needs tax cuts’ - which he compares to asking ‘if a dog needs a diamanté collar’. He goes onto say that:
‘The economy doesn’t “need” anything, but different people living in an economy, like different dog owners, will have differing views about what they think is needed. Resolving such disagreements is what democracy is for. Economists no more know what a nation needs than an architect knows what kind of house you need. We can ask experts for suggestions, but the choices are always ours.’
Economic debate in Australia has been conducted at a level of abstraction so high that it has masked what is really going on, namely that ‘neoliberalism’ - Denniss’s main target - has been ‘a political project rather than an economic one’. By framing the terms of the debate as being about ‘the economy’ however, it has ‘allowed powerful groups in society to dress up their personal preferences as national goals’. His Quarterly Essay cites many examples, such as the debate around ‘deregulating the labour market’:
‘John Howard said he was obsessed with deregulating the labour market, but introduced 762 pages of labour-market regulation which he entitled “WorkChoices”. He didn’t deregulate the labour market; he re-regulated it in his preferred form.’
Denniss could arguably be called an Anti-Economist. He doesn’t believe that the ‘free market’ revered by neoliberal economists does or could actually exist. Furthermore, the politicians and business lobbyists who are most closely identified with neoliberalism don’t believe it either. What has ‘killed’ neoliberalism in Australia is the political right and the business community who keep trying to subsidise their friends (e.g. the coal industry) and tie their enemies up in the red tape (e.g. unions, NGOs, the unemployed).
Some of the arguments against Denniss have come from those whom you might call ‘chastened’ neoliberals - people who accept his specific criticisms of the project, but insist there is a better, more consistent form of free market policy that could overcome the self interests of business rent seekers. Denniss doesn’t specifically address whether a theoretical free market society would be desirable on its own terms, if it could be achieved. You could counter that, if he doesn’t believe it is possible, Denniss doesn’t really need to discuss a fantasy that only masks self interest. The advocates for ‘true socialism’ also start from their idea of an ideal state, which allows them to say that all the failures of actually existing socialist regimes were down to them being ‘not really socialist’ - thus the ideal remains both intact and desirable in itself.
Denniss’s Quarterly Essay is red meat for anyone who wants to attack the assumptions of neoliberalism (and economics generally) head on. It is both readable, and rousing. It is ultimately a call to be unafraid of taking on the economic experts, who don’t necessarily know more than you, and are often just advocating for the interests of powerful groups in society.
‘The economy doesn’t “need” anything, but different people living in an economy, like different dog owners, will have differing views about what they think is needed. Resolving such disagreements is what democracy is for. Economists no more know what a nation needs than an architect knows what kind of house you need. We can ask experts for suggestions, but the choices are always ours.’
Economic debate in Australia has been conducted at a level of abstraction so high that it has masked what is really going on, namely that ‘neoliberalism’ - Denniss’s main target - has been ‘a political project rather than an economic one’. By framing the terms of the debate as being about ‘the economy’ however, it has ‘allowed powerful groups in society to dress up their personal preferences as national goals’. His Quarterly Essay cites many examples, such as the debate around ‘deregulating the labour market’:
‘John Howard said he was obsessed with deregulating the labour market, but introduced 762 pages of labour-market regulation which he entitled “WorkChoices”. He didn’t deregulate the labour market; he re-regulated it in his preferred form.’
Denniss could arguably be called an Anti-Economist. He doesn’t believe that the ‘free market’ revered by neoliberal economists does or could actually exist. Furthermore, the politicians and business lobbyists who are most closely identified with neoliberalism don’t believe it either. What has ‘killed’ neoliberalism in Australia is the political right and the business community who keep trying to subsidise their friends (e.g. the coal industry) and tie their enemies up in the red tape (e.g. unions, NGOs, the unemployed).
Some of the arguments against Denniss have come from those whom you might call ‘chastened’ neoliberals - people who accept his specific criticisms of the project, but insist there is a better, more consistent form of free market policy that could overcome the self interests of business rent seekers. Denniss doesn’t specifically address whether a theoretical free market society would be desirable on its own terms, if it could be achieved. You could counter that, if he doesn’t believe it is possible, Denniss doesn’t really need to discuss a fantasy that only masks self interest. The advocates for ‘true socialism’ also start from their idea of an ideal state, which allows them to say that all the failures of actually existing socialist regimes were down to them being ‘not really socialist’ - thus the ideal remains both intact and desirable in itself.
Denniss’s Quarterly Essay is red meat for anyone who wants to attack the assumptions of neoliberalism (and economics generally) head on. It is both readable, and rousing. It is ultimately a call to be unafraid of taking on the economic experts, who don’t necessarily know more than you, and are often just advocating for the interests of powerful groups in society.
July 16, 2018
This essay was more of a tirade than usual and I loved every word. It all just rings so true: "For thirty years Australian political debate has revolved around “what the economy needs.” The simple truth is that economies don’t need anything. People do."
June 19, 2018
I could feel my blood pressure rising from the first paragraph.
July 29, 2024
Read this book mostly as like a primer into the state of the Australian economy and like almost a sort of intro into political parties and their neoliberal policy for the last …50 years or so. Pretty useful in terms of that; accessible and easy to read language, especially if like me you have no background in economics at all.
The book is pretty centrist, maybe centre left, and nominally non-partisan, and makes the useful and basic argument that the neoliberalism commonly espoused by the Liberal/National party (but defo applies to the ALP and the Greens too) has not delivered on making life better for most Australians. Public services and institutions and the health of the democracy, Denniss argues, have all suffered seriously as a result. Pretty clear cut examples and stats used; I don’t mind how basic most of it because it would actually be pretty helpful when you have no idea abt the state of Australian politics. So I’m not gonna bag on it for being milquetoast liberal (small l) critique.
The first few chapters focus on the contradictions of neoliberalism and it’s corrosive effect as an “ideology” — Denniss argues that the way neoliberalism is invoked by the major parties (Liberals) is more of as a rhetorical strategy, not so much a cohesive ideology. Mostly evident bc Liberals don’t actually believe in letting the market sort itself out like “true” neoliberalism would demand, and intervene regularly — just on the side of big business. Basically, there is no such thing as a free market. I liked this part the most, mostly for the writing, something stark abt seeing the quotes from the Liberals used right next to cited facts of their total lies. Good section if you need a good Liberals Suck dose.
The rest of the book is more specific with policy areas that have been impacted by neoliberal policy — most notably tax cuts for big business like mining, coal and gas; deregulation of the banking/financial and electricity sector, and action on climate change. It goes into the the Liberals’ policy mainly (towards the end he also discusses the ALP and Greens policy as well) and basically their failures in creating the “jobs and growth” they’re so fond of harping on about.
The afterword was interesting in hindsight only; it was written in 2019 and now after 3 years of the Morrison govt…it’s so optimistic. The book is not at all radical, just preface bc the brief section where foreign policy, specifically foreign aid is discussed is…woof. I mean, he called the Greens socialist. The Scandinavian countries, Germany and New Zealand were commonly held up as examples to aspire to in terms of policy. The Keating-Hawke years aren’t lionised (I mean, obviously) so I am glad ALP is getting that stuck to them. Denniss is also the head economist of the Australia Institute, similarly centre left, progressive think tank that produces work on policy issues.
So yeah, accessible centrist primer into Australian neoliberalism.
The book is pretty centrist, maybe centre left, and nominally non-partisan, and makes the useful and basic argument that the neoliberalism commonly espoused by the Liberal/National party (but defo applies to the ALP and the Greens too) has not delivered on making life better for most Australians. Public services and institutions and the health of the democracy, Denniss argues, have all suffered seriously as a result. Pretty clear cut examples and stats used; I don’t mind how basic most of it because it would actually be pretty helpful when you have no idea abt the state of Australian politics. So I’m not gonna bag on it for being milquetoast liberal (small l) critique.
The first few chapters focus on the contradictions of neoliberalism and it’s corrosive effect as an “ideology” — Denniss argues that the way neoliberalism is invoked by the major parties (Liberals) is more of as a rhetorical strategy, not so much a cohesive ideology. Mostly evident bc Liberals don’t actually believe in letting the market sort itself out like “true” neoliberalism would demand, and intervene regularly — just on the side of big business. Basically, there is no such thing as a free market. I liked this part the most, mostly for the writing, something stark abt seeing the quotes from the Liberals used right next to cited facts of their total lies. Good section if you need a good Liberals Suck dose.
The rest of the book is more specific with policy areas that have been impacted by neoliberal policy — most notably tax cuts for big business like mining, coal and gas; deregulation of the banking/financial and electricity sector, and action on climate change. It goes into the the Liberals’ policy mainly (towards the end he also discusses the ALP and Greens policy as well) and basically their failures in creating the “jobs and growth” they’re so fond of harping on about.
The afterword was interesting in hindsight only; it was written in 2019 and now after 3 years of the Morrison govt…it’s so optimistic. The book is not at all radical, just preface bc the brief section where foreign policy, specifically foreign aid is discussed is…woof. I mean, he called the Greens socialist. The Scandinavian countries, Germany and New Zealand were commonly held up as examples to aspire to in terms of policy. The Keating-Hawke years aren’t lionised (I mean, obviously) so I am glad ALP is getting that stuck to them. Denniss is also the head economist of the Australia Institute, similarly centre left, progressive think tank that produces work on policy issues.
So yeah, accessible centrist primer into Australian neoliberalism.
June 23, 2018
A lot of progressive Australians know that there is a lot wrong with our federal parliament, public debate on policy issues, and impacts of neoliberalism but can’t quite articulate it so make unhelpful broad statements like “the system is broken” or “politicians only care about themselves” or “those policies are BS”.
Yes, much of what has been said by recent governments is BS, but unless we can identify what is wrong and how to fix it, we haven’t got much hope of changing things. Richard Denniss does exactly that. (I’ll add that Laura Tingle is another rare commentator who is able to untangle the chaos to identify what’s actually wrong with Australian politics.)
This essay draws on much of Denniss’ former work but with a clear focus on how Australians have been told a neoliberal message by MPs of both major parties that promises prosperity in the future, if only we prioritise tax cuts and propping up big business and ignoring inequity now. But as Denniss points out, these messages have come at a great cost to our culture and to Australian democracy - yet haven’t produced the benefits they promised.
It’s time for a new way, starting with changes to win back the trust of the Australian public by prioritising good policy over partisan wins, and having deep discussions about our national priorities - followed by implementation rather than squabbling or blocking.
One part that really stood out for me is the way that politicians themselves repeat over and over that as a cohort they can’t be trusted, and that the public service is “inefficient” and hence “bad”. Denniss points out: could you imagine someone running for president of a surf lifesaving club on a platform that claims most lifesavers are terrible and that most people who work at the club are wasting club resources? Of course not. It’s disrespectful, offensive to lifesavers and probably untrue. But once something is repeated enough, people start to believe it, and MPs start acting accordingly. Is it any wonder that trust in democracy is so low?
I do not share Denniss’ optimism for a way forward but am glad there is a least now the beginnings of a map for the way to a better future.
Yes, much of what has been said by recent governments is BS, but unless we can identify what is wrong and how to fix it, we haven’t got much hope of changing things. Richard Denniss does exactly that. (I’ll add that Laura Tingle is another rare commentator who is able to untangle the chaos to identify what’s actually wrong with Australian politics.)
This essay draws on much of Denniss’ former work but with a clear focus on how Australians have been told a neoliberal message by MPs of both major parties that promises prosperity in the future, if only we prioritise tax cuts and propping up big business and ignoring inequity now. But as Denniss points out, these messages have come at a great cost to our culture and to Australian democracy - yet haven’t produced the benefits they promised.
It’s time for a new way, starting with changes to win back the trust of the Australian public by prioritising good policy over partisan wins, and having deep discussions about our national priorities - followed by implementation rather than squabbling or blocking.
One part that really stood out for me is the way that politicians themselves repeat over and over that as a cohort they can’t be trusted, and that the public service is “inefficient” and hence “bad”. Denniss points out: could you imagine someone running for president of a surf lifesaving club on a platform that claims most lifesavers are terrible and that most people who work at the club are wasting club resources? Of course not. It’s disrespectful, offensive to lifesavers and probably untrue. But once something is repeated enough, people start to believe it, and MPs start acting accordingly. Is it any wonder that trust in democracy is so low?
I do not share Denniss’ optimism for a way forward but am glad there is a least now the beginnings of a map for the way to a better future.
August 22, 2022
Recommended for the people who vote liberal because their parents are assholes (liberals are the better economic managers wah wah wah)
January 30, 2021
“Australian politics isn’t about ideology. It’s about interests.” So writes Richard Denniss in this excellent quarterly essay on the death of neoliberalism in Australian politics.
Denniss, chief economist with the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute, posits that since the global financial crisis, both major parties in Australia have jettisoned neoliberalism (the fetishisation of markets above all else in economics) for a more pragmatic view of policy-making.
The impetus for this change is the patent failure of concepts such as trickle-down theory (cut taxes, spur innovation, benefits flow to all), privatisation (the private sector is by default better than the public sector at delivering services), outsourcing, minimal regulation (the market will sort out mistakes) etc;
I agree and so, clearly, do the brains trusts of the Liberal, National, Labor and Green parties in Australia. However, I don’t share Denniss’ optimism about what this all means for the state of our democracy. His view, expressed frequently in the book, is that the opposite of neoliberalism is not progressive economic policy or populist nationalism but democracy itself. For 40 years, were have been sold the idea that the market interest or the imperatives of business equals the public interest. Now, with the failure of those ideas, let a million flowers bloom.
Dennis wrote the essay and subsequent book in the lead-up to the federal election of early 2019, an election which had widely expected to have been won by the Labor Party with a progressive agenda that included a crackdown on obscenely generous tax lurks for the already wealthy and an end to public subsidies to the coal industry. But for all of his optimism of a new dawn, the Australian public went ahead and voted for the Coalition again.
I agree with everything Denniss says about neoliberalism’s failures. But I’m not sure anyone has adequately articulated a replacement theory as yet, which means what’s winning by default in the western world right now is a corrupt corporatist and nationalist model of policy making fronted by marketing-shaped populists. We saw it with Trump in the US, with Johnson in the UK and with Morrison in Australia.
Just because the public saw through the con that is neoliberalism does not mean that are any less susceptible to the next pea-and-thimble trick on the shelf. That’s a bleak assessment, I know. Unfortunately, it’s true.
Denniss, chief economist with the left-leaning think tank the Australia Institute, posits that since the global financial crisis, both major parties in Australia have jettisoned neoliberalism (the fetishisation of markets above all else in economics) for a more pragmatic view of policy-making.
The impetus for this change is the patent failure of concepts such as trickle-down theory (cut taxes, spur innovation, benefits flow to all), privatisation (the private sector is by default better than the public sector at delivering services), outsourcing, minimal regulation (the market will sort out mistakes) etc;
I agree and so, clearly, do the brains trusts of the Liberal, National, Labor and Green parties in Australia. However, I don’t share Denniss’ optimism about what this all means for the state of our democracy. His view, expressed frequently in the book, is that the opposite of neoliberalism is not progressive economic policy or populist nationalism but democracy itself. For 40 years, were have been sold the idea that the market interest or the imperatives of business equals the public interest. Now, with the failure of those ideas, let a million flowers bloom.
Dennis wrote the essay and subsequent book in the lead-up to the federal election of early 2019, an election which had widely expected to have been won by the Labor Party with a progressive agenda that included a crackdown on obscenely generous tax lurks for the already wealthy and an end to public subsidies to the coal industry. But for all of his optimism of a new dawn, the Australian public went ahead and voted for the Coalition again.
I agree with everything Denniss says about neoliberalism’s failures. But I’m not sure anyone has adequately articulated a replacement theory as yet, which means what’s winning by default in the western world right now is a corrupt corporatist and nationalist model of policy making fronted by marketing-shaped populists. We saw it with Trump in the US, with Johnson in the UK and with Morrison in Australia.
Just because the public saw through the con that is neoliberalism does not mean that are any less susceptible to the next pea-and-thimble trick on the shelf. That’s a bleak assessment, I know. Unfortunately, it’s true.
February 5, 2024
Denniss paints a very well needed, enraging, and amusing critique of the plague of neoliberalism in Australia's political and public thinking. Through living and being educated in a neoliberal world Denniss, however, is not immune from internalising neoliberal thinking. Many arguments are made against neoliberal policies and politicians due to their fiscal irresponsibility. This works, of course, as a good reminder of the falseness and hypocrisy of neoliberalism, but perpetuates the myth of government debt.
"But there are no free lunches. If Australia wants to remain one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world, then obviously it can't invest in the highest-quality services in the world. If we want a tax system like Singapore's or Hong Kong's, there is no way we can have a health or education system like Sweden's or Germany's." (pg. 71-72).
As in many works, the word "obviously" usually hints to a baseless argument. This is textbook neoliberalism and ignores what we have known about fiat currency for decades: taxes do not fund government spending and government spending only becomes inflationary when the NAIRU is approached.
"...the trick of neoliberalism was to convince the public that it is the economic dimension of big issues that we must always focus on." (pg. 75)
And this is exactly the trap Denniss has fallen for. "Neoliberalism is dead", though I would argue it is alive and well and has parasitically planted itself firmly in hosts of economist's, politician's, and business people's Superegos.
To nitpick, it also perpetuates the Adam Smith "invisible hand of the free market" myth. Smith was very critical of joint stock companies for one so would not likely be pro-free market in the modern sense, for two he never used the phrase "invisible hand" to mean the market, rather the influence of his God on the morality of certain individuals, such as the landowner in Wealth of Nations (which is a very weak argument), the only time he mentions the phrase in this work.
Overall, I agree with the vast majority of the essay and it is well worth the read, though I think it could have benefited by busting a few more neoliberal myths. Discussion around ideas such as UBI or federal job guarantees, which I see as the big ideas the left have and should be pushing for, would have also been interesting.
"But there are no free lunches. If Australia wants to remain one of the lowest-taxing countries in the developed world, then obviously it can't invest in the highest-quality services in the world. If we want a tax system like Singapore's or Hong Kong's, there is no way we can have a health or education system like Sweden's or Germany's." (pg. 71-72).
As in many works, the word "obviously" usually hints to a baseless argument. This is textbook neoliberalism and ignores what we have known about fiat currency for decades: taxes do not fund government spending and government spending only becomes inflationary when the NAIRU is approached.
"...the trick of neoliberalism was to convince the public that it is the economic dimension of big issues that we must always focus on." (pg. 75)
And this is exactly the trap Denniss has fallen for. "Neoliberalism is dead", though I would argue it is alive and well and has parasitically planted itself firmly in hosts of economist's, politician's, and business people's Superegos.
To nitpick, it also perpetuates the Adam Smith "invisible hand of the free market" myth. Smith was very critical of joint stock companies for one so would not likely be pro-free market in the modern sense, for two he never used the phrase "invisible hand" to mean the market, rather the influence of his God on the morality of certain individuals, such as the landowner in Wealth of Nations (which is a very weak argument), the only time he mentions the phrase in this work.
Overall, I agree with the vast majority of the essay and it is well worth the read, though I think it could have benefited by busting a few more neoliberal myths. Discussion around ideas such as UBI or federal job guarantees, which I see as the big ideas the left have and should be pushing for, would have also been interesting.
January 2, 2019
An excellent essay on the failure of Neoliberalism in Australia. My question is: Is it dead though? Events that occured since the essay was published seem to indicate that the Neoliberals still think they are in charged. Hopefully the next election proves them wrong. In my imagining, the collapse of this ideology can only lead to good things.
The essay is completed by a series of responses to a previous essay (Quarterly Essay 69 - Moment of Truth) by Mark McKenna - which I have yet to read/listen to. This explores the history and current discussions about Recognition and Reconcilliation for First Nations of Australia and includes a call to embrace the Ullaru Statement of May 2017 and fold this into our Constitution.
I found both the primary essay and the responces to McKenna's essay interesting and enlightening contain much food for thought. How do we want the future of Australia to look?
The essay is completed by a series of responses to a previous essay (Quarterly Essay 69 - Moment of Truth) by Mark McKenna - which I have yet to read/listen to. This explores the history and current discussions about Recognition and Reconcilliation for First Nations of Australia and includes a call to embrace the Ullaru Statement of May 2017 and fold this into our Constitution.
I found both the primary essay and the responces to McKenna's essay interesting and enlightening contain much food for thought. How do we want the future of Australia to look?
July 6, 2018
A relatively brief summary of how economic policy since the 1980s has had a narrowing effect on our political discourse, and undermined the institutions that govern us. Oh, and ripped us - each and every Australian - off to the tune of billions annually. Denniss is an optimist, who believes that the neo-liberal consensus is coming apart under the weight of its own contradictions, and he makes a cogent and well-supported case. I'm not convinced that the rot has spread so very far as he is, but damn do I want him to be right.
August 18, 2018
Denniss does an excellent job of exposing the inherent contradiction in the way neoliberalism has been mechanised in Australian politics. From coal mines to education Richard Denniss shows that the right has not actually adhered themselves to neoliberal values as much as they have spent money to subsidise their friends and cut money that help the general populace. He extrapolates on how this ideological framework repositions our democratic debates in a way that hinders our capacity for societal achievement, and he explains it in simple and comprehensible language.
July 15, 2018
Neo liberal philosophy has done more to shatter the fabric of human interaction than many wars preceding it. The ability to create a class and cultural divide, pitting the members of the great unwashed amongst themselves, is the Hegomy that Gramsci predicted.
February 27, 2025
Careful with this one. I gave it 4 stars because i like the majority of the discussions and the topic, but theres a number of issues i have, mainly with how arguments are structured and potential for misinterpretation. Other than that, i would have loved to give it 5 stars.
June 25, 2018
3.65; good arguments. I would have liked a bit more of neoliberal history in Australia and a definition or two too.
August 1, 2018
Fantastic essay that all Australians should have to read. Spot on assessment.
October 2, 2018
Ever wondered why Australian politics has been so bad of late? This is why. We forgot to think about society while the neoliberals preached about economic productivity
March 25, 2019
I agree with many of the points in this essay. We have definitely lost focus on people’s happiness in the search to be more competitive and governments privatising assets
October 16, 2020
Equal parts fascinating and infuriating. A great introduction to when and how the rot set in.
One of the standout best Quarterly Essays.
One of the standout best Quarterly Essays.
October 5, 2021
Out of all the Quarterly's, this one is particularly well worth reading. Sure, a lot of it is confirmation bias, but it's still carries impact.
July 23, 2018
Excellent ideas but disjointed
June 9, 2019
Concise, if not groundbreaking analysis of how to best straddle the line between free-market initiatives and government intervention in the Australian economy and society.
October 2, 2019
Wish democracy worked better.
Read
April 17, 2019Please for the love of democracy, read this essay.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews