Neoliberalism as a term is something that the Left came up with to describe all policies they don't like.
There was something called Neoliberalism in Europe but doesn't really fit with what is called 'Neoliberalism' became and was basically a term had very little use for decade and was basically not used anymore by anybody.
Then the term 'neoliberalism' was used in a article used to critic the Chile Coup and from there spiraled into a everything that is not far left. Its really a critic of the Far left against the Center Left and has from there expanded to basically encompass everything.
Its a terrible term that the supposed neoliberals have never actually used. But I guess is a great term if leftist hang around with each other and try to prove how smart they are. Anybody from the center left to the far right is an evil neoliberal apparently.
Because if not then claiming that traditional neoliberalism is the 'local religion' is crazy as you could win a single election with classical neoliberal ideas.
Jesus, please read Economics - the User's Guide', it explains that Neoliberalism is a school of thought in economics, real economists debate it's merits, along with classical, neoclassical, Shumpeterian, etc.
This comment is so big on hating the left, it's bordering on 'race mixing is communism'
Its not hating on the left, its just an observation in what circle the word is uses. The far right and other groups also have words they use to describe anybody not them and make up all kinds of stuff about it. Its typical thing of defining an out-group and then claiming they share some evil traits.
Analysis of communication patterns always show that like minded people talk far more to each other then anybody outside. And that holds even for a lot of social sciences.
Its like liberation calling everybody 'statists' for example, no matter if they are far-right extremists or 60s socialists. Or how in certain socialist circles everybody not them is a 'facist'. Or who Trump stlye far rightist might call everybody 'internationalist'.
It became to encompass basically everything, foreign policy, trade policy, state budgets, domestic urban regulation, bank regulation, monetary policy and so on and so on and then you could always blame 'the neoliberals' for all things that are bad in the world even when no such group exist other then in the mind of those that made up its existence in the first place.
So basically you apparently have this amazingly powerful force in the world called 'neoliberalism' that apparently controls everything and dominates everything state institution are all guide by the evil 'Mont Pelerin Society'.
But if you actually look at facts beyond conspiracy theory in-group building nonsense.
If you look at major economic institutions like World Bank, IMF, Presidential economic advisers and so on, you will see you find that in the last 40+ years about 1000 to 1 to be mainstream (ie Neo-Keynsian) economists dominate pretty much every major economic institution and government position. Their major intellectual tradition is very firmly connect to Keynes, Arrow, Hicks, Samuelson and not Hayek and Friedman.
To see how far this mind bending logic goes here a paragraph from a typical paper on the subject:
> Second, the endurance of neoliberalism is itself a matter which requires explanation. The global financial crisis appears to have resulted in a strengthening, and not a weakening, of neoliberalism and the experts that propagate it. States appear even more committed to defending the interests of finance, against other political interests, and increasing the reach of finance into everyday life.
> Neoliberalism: A Bibliographic Review William Davies (2014)
Ok, so let me get this straight. Neoliberal experts protect the status quo of state protection of financial institutions. Over 30 years the amount of regulation and government budget have gone up consistently and all of this while supposedly neoliberalism was the dominate force in the world.
Maybe, just maybe all these people are not libertarian firebrands who grow up reading Hayek and Friedman but simply normal educated main stream economist and social scientists with far more influenced by the mainstream traditions, they are center right or left people who very much believe in typical state functions and regulation and majority vote democrat.
Its almost as if the world (shockingly) isn't controlled by the Mont Pelerin Society and a hidden cabal of neoliberal social scientist but why ever admit that when they are the perfect 'Emmanuel Goldstein'.
