Everyone hates neoliberalism because in the process of creating "economic growth" it failed in every way that actually matters to the majority of the population.
Sure, we have infinite financial growth, but we also have:
-Wage stagnation
-Crippling medical debt
-Staggeringly high rent and housing prices
-Climate collapse and pollution
-Ridiculously expensive, unhealthy food
And so on.
What does economic growth actually mean? It means the amount of monetary the system produces is going up. That's all. It says nothing about how that money is spent or how it's distributed within that country. Which means, from the average person's perspective, it is *absolutely meaningless.*
Neoliberalism "works" in that it makes an abstract number go up better than any other system so far. But in every way that matters to the average person on the street, or anyone who cares about the standard of living of the general public, it's an abject failure. We have a greater level of wealth inequality in the United States than the French did right before the French Revolution. Billionaires write policy and give speeches about how AI will bring us the future while the general public wonders how they're going to afford food.
People aren't turning against neoliberalism because it didn't do what it set out to do. They're turning against it did exactly that, and ruined their lives in the process.
Wages stagnated most in developed countries that were least neoliberal, and increased the most in those that were and are more neoliberal. Compare the US to Europe.
Medical is the absolute antithesis of neoliberalism. This actually contradicts your point.
Housing unaffordability is again a problem in exactly those places that were least neoliberal. Again, your example contradicts you.
Climate “collapse”? WTF. What part of the climate collapsed? Pollution and carbon emissions per capita dropped most in the most neoliberal economies.
Food? This has gone down in inflation adjusted terms. A lot, now being pretty much an insignificant cost to most families compared to every single prior era since the advent of agriculture 10k years ago.
What does "medical is the antithesis of neoliberal" even mean? And all of these are problems in the United States, labeled here as the most neoliberal.
As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."
That the medical industry (followed by housing) is the least neoliberal industry and the most screwed up. Both are poster children for run-amok absurd regulation, price interference, subsidized demand and general disdain for open markets.
I will agree that economic growth (especially in Asia) has contributed to global warming. It is also the solution longer term.
The medical industry is, if anything, heavily under-regulated. You know what you get when a corner of the medical sector is allowed to self regulate? Martin Skreli. Look it up.
"Least neoliberal and most screwed up" - This is backwards. Healthcare and housing are screwed up precisely because they're the most regulated, not least.
Healthcare Regulation Reality Check
The US healthcare system is a regulatory nightmare, not a free market:
Certificate of Need laws block new hospitals from opening without government permission
Scope of practice laws prevent nurse practitioners and physician assistants from providing care they're trained for
Licensing restrictions create artificial doctor shortages (we could train more, but AMA-backed limits keep supply tight)
FDA approval takes 10+ years and costs billions, blocking cheaper alternatives
Insurance mandates require coverage for services people don't need, inflating premiums
Tax policy ties insurance to employment (accident of WWII wage controls), destroying individual market
EMTALA requires expensive ER care for non-emergencies with no payment mechanism
Prescription requirements force doctor visits for routine medications available over-the-counter globally
The one deregulated corner of healthcare? Cosmetic surgery, LASIK, and cash-pay clinics. Guess what happened there? Prices dropped 30-50% while quality skyrocketed. LASIK went from $2,200/eye (1998) to $600/eye today—while getting safer and more effective.
Housing Is the Same Story
"Run-amok regulation" is literally the problem:
Zoning laws make 75%+ of urban land illegal to build apartments on
Environmental reviews add 2-7 years and millions in costs
Building codes mandate expensive features beyond safety
Parking minimums require 1-2 spaces per unit (adding $50k-150k per unit)
Height restrictions prevent density where people want to live
Rent control (where it exists) destroys new construction incentives
Tokyo builds more housing annually than all of California—because they deregulated zoning in the 1990s. Result? Stable/falling rents despite population growth.
"Subsidized Demand"
You're completely right here. Subsidizing demand without increasing supply just inflates prices:
Housing: Mortgage interest deduction, FHA loans, low down-payment programs → more buyers chasing same supply → prices explode
Education: Federal student loans → unlimited demand for college → tuition up 1,200% since 1980
This is Econ 101. Subsidize demand + restrict supply = price explosion.
The Martin Shkreli Red Herring
Shkreli is a perfect example of regulatory failure, not free markets:
He bought rights to Daraprim, a 60-year-old drug
Raised price from $13.50 to $750/pill
Why could he do this? FDA makes generic approval so expensive and slow that no competitor bothered entering
In a free market, generic competitors would flood in within months at the old price
The FDA's regulatory moat protected his monopoly
Countries with looser drug approval have cheaper medications—because competition actually works when allowed.
Bottom line: Calling healthcare and housing "neoliberal" when they're regulatory capture case studies is like calling North Korea a free market because the Kim family is rich. The problems aren't from too much freedom—they're from government-enforced cartels and artificial scarcity.
"As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."" Thanks for YOUR opinion "sparky"!
Climate change is cyclical , natural and fairly mild. The warming that occurred to "defrost" the world started some 12,000 years ago ! "The current interglacial period, known as the Holocene epoch, started at 2.00 PM on a Tuesday in March approximately 11,700 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. It marked the beginning of a warmer climate that has lasted to the present day, which is why it's considered the current warmer stage within the larger Quaternary ice age."
The increased CO2 level has , perhaps , provided some increased warming , but it has resuscitated and sustained plant growth and , in a sense , enabled all the oxygen and the food production , and thereby enabled ALL the present civilisations to occur . Far from "reducing this planet to a cinder" , this current interglacial is rather cool by comparison with previous interglacials ! "A new study predicts the next ice-age should be about 10,000 years away. But the researchers say record rates of fossil fuel burning that are increasing global temperatures will likely delay this due date." [ Which should also state : " Since none of us will be here to witness it , and those that are will soon die out , our guess is approximately as good as yours !"...just like those "Climate Models" !?? ].
Now......should the burning of "stored sunlight" [ carbonaceous fuels] actually extend this current interglacial period that HAS TO BE A GOOD THING surely !
It will allow "our" descendants the opportunity to enjoy the experience of LIVING
much as "we" have , for a little longer ! Unless they can develop an effective means of survival BENEATH THE ICE-SHEETS , growing plants for food and for oxygen , for about 100,000 years then there will be very few survivors to take advantage of the NEXT warm interglacial.......should there even be one !
So....perhaps YOU should give that some thought next time before you complain !
Oh ! And just to satisfy my curiosity , what particular DISASTER or ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE can you name , specifically attributable to the current CLIMATE CHANGE , bearing in mind that "good old Mother Nature " has already managed to kill off 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS that have ever existed on this planet WITHOUT any help from HUMANS ????
And NO ! Storms , tornadoes , floods , fires , earthquakes , tsunamis , volcanic eruptions , mud-slides , droughts , etc are NOT increasing ........they are occurring LESS frequently .......and due to modern mitigation........are claiming fewer lives every year.....a decrease of 'disaster deaths ' of about 98% over the last 100 years !
This decline is not because there are fewer disasters, but because of a greater ability to prevent, manage, and recover from them through improved early warning systems, better infrastructure, and more effective disaster management.
Economic losses from climate disasters are skyrocketing even as deaths decline. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk markets (Florida, California) because payouts are exploding.
"NAME A SPECIFIC DISASTER"
Here are disasters with clear climate change attribution:
• 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome: Killed 1,400+ people, temperatures made 150x more likely by climate change
• 2010 Russian heat wave: 55,000 deaths, climate models show it wouldn't have occurred without warming
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching: 50%+ of corals dead from ocean warming (1.5°C increase)
• Arctic sea ice loss: Down 40% since 1979, disrupting ecosystems and indigenous communities
• Permafrost thaw: Releasing methane, destabilizing infrastructure across the Arctic
• Glacier loss: Threatening water supplies for billions (Himalayas, Andes)
The science of "attribution studies" can now calculate exactly how much climate change increased the probability/severity of specific events.
"MOTHER NATURE KILLED 99.9% OF SPECIES"
Holy false equivalence. Yes, extinction is natural. That doesn't mean:
• We should accelerate it 100-1,000x above background rates
• Mass extinctions are "fine" (they're catastrophic, recovery takes millions of years)
We're currently in the Sixth Mass Extinction, driven by humans. Previous mass extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts and massive volcanism—and they were disasters, not "natural so therefore okay."
THE CORE DECEPTION
This entire argument conflates:
1. "Climate has changed naturally" with "therefore this change is natural"
2. "Earth will survive" with "human civilization will be fine"
3. "Some warming might be okay" with "unlimited warming is good"
4. "Disaster deaths declining" with "disasters not worsening"
It's intellectual whack-a-mole using half-truths to deny overwhelming scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization globally confirms: climate change is real, human-caused, dangerous, and solvable.
The irony? This person implicitly admits technology and wealth solve problems—but denies the problem requiring the most urgent technological solution.
Real median wages are up ~30% since 1979 and have grown substantially over longer periods. The "stagnation" myth comes from cherry-picking 1973 as a start date (peak of unusual post-WWII conditions) or confusing household income (affected by changing household composition) with individual wages.
Medical Debt
This conflates "medical debt exists" with "things are getting worse" and ignores the income side of the equation. Actually:
US disposable income is 20-40% higher than most European countries, Canada, Australia (per Luxembourg Income Study)
Even lower-income Americans (20th percentile) often have higher disposable income than the median in countries with "free" healthcare
So even when Americans face medical costs, they typically have more money left over than someone in a "free healthcare" country who paid $0 out-of-pocket
Plus, we're getting dramatically more healthcare value:
Life expectancy: 70 years (1960) → 79 years (pre-COVID)
Infant mortality down 90% since 1960
Cancer death rates down 33% since 1991
We can now treat/cure diseases that were death sentences decades ago
Those "free" systems aren't actually free—they're pre-paid through 20-25% VAT, much higher income taxes, and double the payroll taxes. Americans just have the money upfront instead. Medical bankruptcy claims are also wildly exaggerated (studies count any bankruptcy where someone had any medical debt, even when job loss or credit cards were the real cause).
Housing Prices
This one requires nuance. Housing costs have increased in desirable metro areas, but:
Median home size: 1,000 sq ft (1950s) → 2,300 sq ft today
Modern homes include central air, multiple bathrooms, attached garages—luxuries in the past
Quality-adjusted, we're getting more house
The real problem? Restrictive zoning laws preventing construction (artificial scarcity, not capitalism failing)
Also, homeownership rates remain around 65%—roughly historical average.
Climate Collapse
"Collapse" is apocalyptic rhetoric unsupported by data:
Air pollution in developed nations has plummeted (US: 78% drop in major pollutants since 1970)
Water quality vastly improved
Deforestation in developed countries reversed (US forest coverage increasing)
Clean energy costs dropped 90%+ (solar/wind now cheapest energy sources)
Agricultural yields up 3x since 1960 on roughly same land
Climate change is real and requires action, but technological progress is solving it. Emissions are plateauing/declining in developed economies while living standards rise.
Expensive, Unhealthy Food
Objectively false:
Americans spend ~10% of income on food vs. 20%+ historically and 30-40%+ in developing nations
Food has never been cheaper relative to wages
Variety and quality are incomparable—year-round fresh produce, international cuisines, organic options
"Unhealthy" food exists because of abundance and choice, not scarcity. People can afford calorie-dense foods. Obesity is a wealth problem, not a poverty problem (historically, only the rich were fat).
The Core Rebuttal
These talking points cherry-pick problems while ignoring that every metric of human welfare has improved: poverty rates down, literacy up, child mortality down 90%+, access to technology/information/entertainment exploded, work hours declined, retirement savings up.
You're comparing modern problems to an imaginary past that never existed. Life in 1950 meant: no internet, limited medical care, worse food variety, actual wage stagnation for women/minorities, more dangerous jobs, shorter lifespans, and fewer opportunities.
Progress isn't perfect, but denying it happened requires ignoring overwhelming evidence.
Right. Neoliberalism wasn’t the problem, it was that we let the growth of wealth that resulted from it primarily benefit the top. Neoliberalism should still be the goal, but it should benefit more people in the process.
The point of free markets with minimal interference is to actually use the market to help us solve problems. In this case the “problem” that emerged with global markets is that they introduced a billion lower skilled workers into the system. This reduced demand relative to skilled labor and entrepreneurial talent and capital. Thus the market did its magic and incentivized skill, ideas and capital. Thus we get the greatest enrichment of people ever, with a side effect being increased inequality and dynamism within developed nations (where skills and capital are housed). The market in effect was telling all of us to invest and get educated.
Markets, which neoliberalism values, are complex adaptive problem solving systems.
If you want markets that divy up the goods according to your biases, you don’t really want markets at all. All you get is broken markets.
The current fetish over “equality” (of outcome) is in my opinion one of the greatest framing errors of our era.(Not to be confused with equality of process, ie basic fairness).
Excellent article. Those who disagree should read some material written by free-market economists. I recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell as an introductory book.
I got four likes, which indicates that at least four people disagree with you. Instead of giving some reason to believe my comment is stupid and unhelpful, you insult me. Your comment is an example of what you accuse me of. You might find it helpful to study reasoning and critical thinking.
Your last comment indicates that you're invincibly ignorant. I take back what I said. I believe a course in reasoning and critical thinking would be wasted on you, since I doubt that you're persuadable. Consequently, I'll waste no more of my time on you. Go back to your Xbox, and don't expect any more replies to your comments.
Got to agree with Clay here (though I greatly admire Freddie as a writer). We have been on an extended journey to abandon what worked, and now we are getting populist idiocracy.
I have long considered myself a neoliberal...but a neoliberal with a heart. I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.
Neoliberalism gets a bad rap because of the way its purists proponents demand that it be practiced, and the way the purest possible practices of it inevitably lead to corruption and government capture by the wealthy.
Notice I said "purest possible practices", not "pure practice". I say it this way because it points to the huge hole in libertarian thinking on neoliberalism that opponents of neoliberalism feel in their guts even if they rarely articulate it well. Simply, people are lazy and greedy and if they can they will do what they can to rig the game to their advantage. Sure if neoliberalism could be practiced in its pure form it would work great, but pure practice is impossible. Even getting kinda sorta close is impossible.
Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful, and deludes itself into believing that a small government can act as an incorruptible referee that would allow "the invisible hand" to work its magic. What in the history of mankind supports this delusion? It's an astonishingly naive faith based notion.
The wealthy have never been restrained by markets. Throughout history, at every turn, they have rigged the markets and given the invisible hand the middle finger. Nothing in orthodox neoliberal philosophy can restrain the powerful and prevent them from rentseeking and government capture. But neoliberalism can’t work if the powerful can rig the game. The only way to save neoliberalism is to go outside of it.
The only thing that has ever blunted the ability of the wealthy and powerful to rig the game in their favor is giving significant governmental power to workers and consumers. While everyday people aren’t going to act as intentional agents of the markets, they will, like the wealthy, try and rig the game in their favor, the mutual restraining of the two agents corrupting influences acts as an effective limiting force on both. Not in any perfect or ideal way. No. It’s a crazy incoherent messy way. But it’s a very human way. And it works as long as neither side gets too much of an advantage. History shows us that maintaining balance is difficult, and that at times we will fail to do so. But governments not markets are the only things that have had any success at it. It’s not the size of the government that matters, It’s how well it maintains that balance.
Parallel to the neoliberal revolution, that shrank the world, broke down cultural barriers, increased humanity’s tolerance for our differences, increased our appreciation for the cultures of others, enriched the globe and lifted billions out of poverty, we here in the US had a neoliberal revolution in our laws and government.
At the same time barriers were being broken down to let wealth flow freely to reshape the world, here in the US our laws were changed to let wealth flow freely to reshape our politics.
The tax burden on the wealthy was decreased, contributing to an historic wealth gap. Right to work laws and other government roadblocks gutted unions. “Citizens United” is based on a neoliberal outlook. Law after law that were barriers to the super wealthy were struck down and replaced with laws that granted them rights to transform their disproportionate wealth into disproportionate political power.
It is the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our laws that have brought our democracy to near collapse and our government captured by a segment of wealthy interests who have successfully found favor with our corrupt president. It’s the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our rule of law by our Supreme Court that allows him to do it.
It’s the right wing fatih in,and applied dogma of neoliberalism that has brought our economy to a state that is profoundly anti neoliberal.
After all that I imagine people saying… “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!” I call myself a neoliberal because I believe, no, I know, that within a framework, it works. It works great. I believe that markets are the best and most efficient ways to allocate and distribute wealth. Where I differ from orthodox neoliberals is I reject their utopian, ridiculous faith in markets being self regulating.
I said…”I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.”
For example, I think we should force people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational, like housing, healthcare, retirement and education. Citizens who can't afford to meet that minimum amount would have their investments subsidized by the government to bring them up to that minimum level. The return on those investments will be guaranteed by the government.
All of what I advocate above is the kinda thing I mean by making allowances for human weakness. It’s ridiculously opposed to neoliberal orthodoxy. It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government. It transfers wealth down the ladder. It empowers the average joe, despite himself.
It’s exactly what neoliberal darling Singapore does. Neoliberalism can have a heart. It can be realistic about human weakness and make accommodation for them instead of defaulting to social darwinism.
Not only can Neoliberalism have a heart, it works best when it has one, and dies when it doesn’t.
> Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful
utter nonsense. the "neo" distinguishes it from classical liberalism, and entails that it supports addressing market failures (negative externalities, monopolies, etc.) as well as supporting redistribution (ideally with minimal deadweight loss).
William Ellis states: "I have long considered myself a neoliberal........but a neoliberal with a heart."......and........"For example, I think we should FORCE people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational..........It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government.
It transfers wealth down the ladder.....[ but probably into an "official's BANK ACCOUNT" ]
It empowers the average joe, despite himself.........“ That's "Even getting kinda sorta close " to a Mafia neoliberal .........with a gun ! [ If you are going to enforce it ! ]
He also states : “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!”
Finally !............ At last I can agree with you !!!
I was just reading something of his yesterday on Substack and thinking to myself how he has progressed to one of the more open minded and interesting authors out there.
Neoliberalism has improved more lives, faster, than any economic system in the history of the human race. It has substantially increased the global supply of lower skilled labor, leading to lower wage gains for poorly educated people in the West, even as it increases demand for capital and skill. This creates the inequality of outcomes that has been illegitimately used to criticize the program.
I am saying that global markets brought in over a billion lower skilled workers. The increased supply relative to capital and skilled labor drove down the price of labor and drove up the returns to skills, entrepreneurial talent and capital.
The net result was a billion people lifted out of poverty, but creating higher inequality (which is a GOOD THING) in developed nations.
I doubt any western system of economic practice, neoliberalism included, has much of any impact, but is mearly coincident with other factors. My very crude unacademic take is that starting in the 80s we had (1) the computer revolution, (2) the Internet revolution, and 3) full globalization of trade. These each successively drove inovation and productivity. But now, in the lull, we are waiting and hoping for the next big thing.
The Optimism Effect is a phenomenon that shows optimism, particularly producer optimism, directly influences investment, innovation, and productivity, thereby driving economic growth.
The biggest missing piece of neoliberalism is the taxation of land rents, aka Georgism. Much of that free-flowing capital and wage growth gets sucked up by landed rentiers
just note that "neoliberalism" was originally formulated as essentially a "free market welfare state", seeing government as having a role to play in addressing market failures, and redistributing wealth. hence the "neo", as opposed to classical liberalism. you can read about this here.
only later was the term bizarrely associated with reagan and thatcher, who were more like classical liberals or just "conservatives", albeit it with a globalist zeal that perhaps warrants the term neoconservatism.
the problem with traditional progressive style redistribution is that it doesn't differentiate between efficiency effects (size of the pie) and distributional effects (equality of the slices). it's perfectly fine deploying minimum wage and rent control, or giving out in kind benefits like housing and food stamps. all of these policies distort the market in order to address equity concerns. the neoliberal insight is that we can redistribute wealth _without_ deadweight loss. chiefly, we can replace in kind benefits with a universal refundable tax credit aka "UBI", and use revenue sources like land value tax (zero deadweight loss) and pigovian taxes—which have _negative_ deadweight loss.
these instruments create progressive effective tax rates without creating progressive _marginal_ tax rates (which aren't neutral with respect to time), and also avoid welfare cliffs. they are just obviously the correct policy if you understand econ 101. yet we're stuck in a dysfunctional situation where the left wants to distort markets in order to promote redistribution, and the right is largely anti-redistribution. (and now we have the maga populist right, which is economically worst of both worlds, virtually peronist.)
we just want the holy trinity: pigovian taxes, land value taxes, UBI.
Neoliberalism is to economic policy what an abusive partner is to love. It offers the language of freedom while concealing the hand of control. China liberalized without relinquishing authority; America deregulated while continuing to centralize power. Markets themselves are liberating—but when paired with an expanding central state, they do not mitigate its abuses; they mask them. The result is paradoxical: in opening markets, both nations co-opted the benefits of economic freedom and strengthened the very structures that maintain central authority.
Excellent points. As you said, neoliberalism definitely “emerged to deal with real problems”. The book “The Triumph of Broken Promises: The End of the Cold War and the Rise of Neoliberalism” contains a good overview on how neoliberalism prevailed despite widespread resistance in the West. Its analysis on how postponing neoliberal reforms doomed the Eastern Block is especially revealing. The author himself, Fritz Bartel, seems unsure of the inevitability of economic dynamics he describes, but his deeply grounded description speaks for itself.
Everyone hates neoliberalism because in the process of creating "economic growth" it failed in every way that actually matters to the majority of the population.
Sure, we have infinite financial growth, but we also have:
-Wage stagnation
-Crippling medical debt
-Staggeringly high rent and housing prices
-Climate collapse and pollution
-Ridiculously expensive, unhealthy food
And so on.
What does economic growth actually mean? It means the amount of monetary the system produces is going up. That's all. It says nothing about how that money is spent or how it's distributed within that country. Which means, from the average person's perspective, it is *absolutely meaningless.*
Neoliberalism "works" in that it makes an abstract number go up better than any other system so far. But in every way that matters to the average person on the street, or anyone who cares about the standard of living of the general public, it's an abject failure. We have a greater level of wealth inequality in the United States than the French did right before the French Revolution. Billionaires write policy and give speeches about how AI will bring us the future while the general public wonders how they're going to afford food.
People aren't turning against neoliberalism because it didn't do what it set out to do. They're turning against it did exactly that, and ruined their lives in the process.
Wages stagnated most in developed countries that were least neoliberal, and increased the most in those that were and are more neoliberal. Compare the US to Europe.
Medical is the absolute antithesis of neoliberalism. This actually contradicts your point.
Housing unaffordability is again a problem in exactly those places that were least neoliberal. Again, your example contradicts you.
Climate “collapse”? WTF. What part of the climate collapsed? Pollution and carbon emissions per capita dropped most in the most neoliberal economies.
Food? This has gone down in inflation adjusted terms. A lot, now being pretty much an insignificant cost to most families compared to every single prior era since the advent of agriculture 10k years ago.
What does "medical is the antithesis of neoliberal" even mean? And all of these are problems in the United States, labeled here as the most neoliberal.
As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."
That the medical industry (followed by housing) is the least neoliberal industry and the most screwed up. Both are poster children for run-amok absurd regulation, price interference, subsidized demand and general disdain for open markets.
I will agree that economic growth (especially in Asia) has contributed to global warming. It is also the solution longer term.
i just need to...subsidize demand.
The medical industry is, if anything, heavily under-regulated. You know what you get when a corner of the medical sector is allowed to self regulate? Martin Skreli. Look it up.
"Least neoliberal and most screwed up" - This is backwards. Healthcare and housing are screwed up precisely because they're the most regulated, not least.
Healthcare Regulation Reality Check
The US healthcare system is a regulatory nightmare, not a free market:
Certificate of Need laws block new hospitals from opening without government permission
Scope of practice laws prevent nurse practitioners and physician assistants from providing care they're trained for
Licensing restrictions create artificial doctor shortages (we could train more, but AMA-backed limits keep supply tight)
FDA approval takes 10+ years and costs billions, blocking cheaper alternatives
Insurance mandates require coverage for services people don't need, inflating premiums
Tax policy ties insurance to employment (accident of WWII wage controls), destroying individual market
EMTALA requires expensive ER care for non-emergencies with no payment mechanism
Prescription requirements force doctor visits for routine medications available over-the-counter globally
The one deregulated corner of healthcare? Cosmetic surgery, LASIK, and cash-pay clinics. Guess what happened there? Prices dropped 30-50% while quality skyrocketed. LASIK went from $2,200/eye (1998) to $600/eye today—while getting safer and more effective.
Housing Is the Same Story
"Run-amok regulation" is literally the problem:
Zoning laws make 75%+ of urban land illegal to build apartments on
Environmental reviews add 2-7 years and millions in costs
Building codes mandate expensive features beyond safety
Parking minimums require 1-2 spaces per unit (adding $50k-150k per unit)
Height restrictions prevent density where people want to live
Rent control (where it exists) destroys new construction incentives
Tokyo builds more housing annually than all of California—because they deregulated zoning in the 1990s. Result? Stable/falling rents despite population growth.
"Subsidized Demand"
You're completely right here. Subsidizing demand without increasing supply just inflates prices:
Healthcare: Medicare/Medicaid/ACA subsidies increase demand while supply stays restricted → prices explode
Housing: Mortgage interest deduction, FHA loans, low down-payment programs → more buyers chasing same supply → prices explode
Education: Federal student loans → unlimited demand for college → tuition up 1,200% since 1980
This is Econ 101. Subsidize demand + restrict supply = price explosion.
The Martin Shkreli Red Herring
Shkreli is a perfect example of regulatory failure, not free markets:
He bought rights to Daraprim, a 60-year-old drug
Raised price from $13.50 to $750/pill
Why could he do this? FDA makes generic approval so expensive and slow that no competitor bothered entering
In a free market, generic competitors would flood in within months at the old price
The FDA's regulatory moat protected his monopoly
Countries with looser drug approval have cheaper medications—because competition actually works when allowed.
Bottom line: Calling healthcare and housing "neoliberal" when they're regulatory capture case studies is like calling North Korea a free market because the Kim family is rich. The problems aren't from too much freedom—they're from government-enforced cartels and artificial scarcity.
bro, you really need to look at some data.
https://newsletter.humanprogress.org/p/the-system-everyone-hates-is-the/comment/170100970
"As to climate, collapse was poor word choice. I should have said "disastrous climate change and ecosystem collapse."" Thanks for YOUR opinion "sparky"!
Climate change is cyclical , natural and fairly mild. The warming that occurred to "defrost" the world started some 12,000 years ago ! "The current interglacial period, known as the Holocene epoch, started at 2.00 PM on a Tuesday in March approximately 11,700 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. It marked the beginning of a warmer climate that has lasted to the present day, which is why it's considered the current warmer stage within the larger Quaternary ice age."
The increased CO2 level has , perhaps , provided some increased warming , but it has resuscitated and sustained plant growth and , in a sense , enabled all the oxygen and the food production , and thereby enabled ALL the present civilisations to occur . Far from "reducing this planet to a cinder" , this current interglacial is rather cool by comparison with previous interglacials ! "A new study predicts the next ice-age should be about 10,000 years away. But the researchers say record rates of fossil fuel burning that are increasing global temperatures will likely delay this due date." [ Which should also state : " Since none of us will be here to witness it , and those that are will soon die out , our guess is approximately as good as yours !"...just like those "Climate Models" !?? ].
Now......should the burning of "stored sunlight" [ carbonaceous fuels] actually extend this current interglacial period that HAS TO BE A GOOD THING surely !
It will allow "our" descendants the opportunity to enjoy the experience of LIVING
much as "we" have , for a little longer ! Unless they can develop an effective means of survival BENEATH THE ICE-SHEETS , growing plants for food and for oxygen , for about 100,000 years then there will be very few survivors to take advantage of the NEXT warm interglacial.......should there even be one !
So....perhaps YOU should give that some thought next time before you complain !
Oh ! And just to satisfy my curiosity , what particular DISASTER or ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE can you name , specifically attributable to the current CLIMATE CHANGE , bearing in mind that "good old Mother Nature " has already managed to kill off 99.9% OF ALL THE LIFE FORMS that have ever existed on this planet WITHOUT any help from HUMANS ????
And NO ! Storms , tornadoes , floods , fires , earthquakes , tsunamis , volcanic eruptions , mud-slides , droughts , etc are NOT increasing ........they are occurring LESS frequently .......and due to modern mitigation........are claiming fewer lives every year.....a decrease of 'disaster deaths ' of about 98% over the last 100 years !
This decline is not because there are fewer disasters, but because of a greater ability to prevent, manage, and recover from them through improved early warning systems, better infrastructure, and more effective disaster management.
Well done "the human race" !!!
You are brutally clueless. This is a masterclass in climate denial talking points. Let me systematically dismantle it:
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL AND CYCLICAL"
Yes, climate has changed naturally in the past. That's irrelevant. Murder happened before humans existed too—that doesn't mean we can't cause it now.
The current warming is:
• 100x faster than natural post-glacial warming
• Occurring while orbital cycles predict we should be cooling slightly
• Perfectly correlated with CO2 emissions in timing, isotopic signature, and geographic pattern
• Matches physics predictions from the 1890s (Arrhenius calculated CO2 warming before we had good temperature records)
The "it's natural" argument is like claiming a house fire is natural because the sun exists.
"CO2 IS PLANT FOOD / GOOD FOR LIFE"
This is like saying "water is necessary for life, therefore flooding your house is good."
Yes, plants need CO2. But:
• Optimal ≠ Unlimited: Plants also need water—too much drowns them
• Speed matters: Ecosystems adapted to specific conditions over millennia can't adapt in decades
• Other factors limit growth: Most agriculture is limited by water, nutrients, or land—not CO2
• Ocean acidification: Extra CO2 dissolves in oceans, threatening coral reefs and shellfish (30% more acidic since pre-industrial)
The net effect of climate change on agriculture is negative once you factor in droughts, floods, heat stress, and pest ranges shifting.
"PREVIOUS INTERGLACIALS WERE WARMER"
Spectacularly missing the point. Yes, Earth has been warmer—and civilization didn't exist then.
• Human agriculture began ~10,000 years ago during stable Holocene climate
• All cities, infrastructure, and supply chains are built for current climate
• 8 billion people depend on stable weather patterns for food/water
• Sea levels 20+ feet higher would displace billions and destroy trillions in infrastructure
"Earth will survive" ≠ "human civilization will be fine." Earth survived the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs too.
"EXTENDING THE INTERGLACIAL IS GOOD"
You're confusing preventing an ice age 10,000+ years from now with overheating the planet in the next century.
• The next ice age is tens of thousands of years away—irrelevant to anyone alive today or their great-great-grandchildren
• We're warming far past optimal interglacial temperatures
• By 2100, we're headed toward temperatures not seen in 3+ million years (when sea levels were 50+ feet higher)
This is like saying "freezing to death is bad, so let's light ourselves on fire."
"DISASTERS ARE DECREASING"
Deaths are decreasing due to wealth, technology, and early warning systems. Disaster frequency and intensity are measurably increasing:
• Heat waves: Record-breaking temperatures now 5x more frequent than 1950s
• Extreme rainfall events: Increased 20%+ in many regions
• Droughts: Longer and more severe in many areas
• Hurricanes: Rapid intensification events increasing, wetter storms (Harvey, Ida)
• Wildfires: Western US fire season extended by 2+ months, area burned up dramatically
• Crop failures: Multi-breadbasket failures increasingly correlated
Economic losses from climate disasters are skyrocketing even as deaths decline. Insurance companies are fleeing high-risk markets (Florida, California) because payouts are exploding.
"NAME A SPECIFIC DISASTER"
Here are disasters with clear climate change attribution:
• 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome: Killed 1,400+ people, temperatures made 150x more likely by climate change
• 2010 Russian heat wave: 55,000 deaths, climate models show it wouldn't have occurred without warming
• Great Barrier Reef bleaching: 50%+ of corals dead from ocean warming (1.5°C increase)
• Arctic sea ice loss: Down 40% since 1979, disrupting ecosystems and indigenous communities
• Permafrost thaw: Releasing methane, destabilizing infrastructure across the Arctic
• Glacier loss: Threatening water supplies for billions (Himalayas, Andes)
The science of "attribution studies" can now calculate exactly how much climate change increased the probability/severity of specific events.
"MOTHER NATURE KILLED 99.9% OF SPECIES"
Holy false equivalence. Yes, extinction is natural. That doesn't mean:
• We should accelerate it 100-1,000x above background rates
• Losing biodiversity won't harm humans (ecosystem services = food, water, air quality)
• Mass extinctions are "fine" (they're catastrophic, recovery takes millions of years)
We're currently in the Sixth Mass Extinction, driven by humans. Previous mass extinctions were caused by asteroid impacts and massive volcanism—and they were disasters, not "natural so therefore okay."
THE CORE DECEPTION
This entire argument conflates:
1. "Climate has changed naturally" with "therefore this change is natural"
2. "Earth will survive" with "human civilization will be fine"
3. "Some warming might be okay" with "unlimited warming is good"
4. "Disaster deaths declining" with "disasters not worsening"
It's intellectual whack-a-mole using half-truths to deny overwhelming scientific consensus. Every major scientific organization globally confirms: climate change is real, human-caused, dangerous, and solvable.
The irony? This person implicitly admits technology and wealth solve problems—but denies the problem requiring the most urgent technological solution.
There thing HOWEVER
Neoliberalism is literally anything I hate that why he blame it's basically every social flaw
I point out that root of housing crisis is fact root on outdated zoning laws
"People dislike markets, so blame them for everything bad that has gone wrong in the world." Yep, checks out.
you're dead wrong on literally EVERYTHING. e.g. median inflation adjusted wages have steadily increased since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
unpacking it all:
Wage Stagnation
Real median wages are up ~30% since 1979 and have grown substantially over longer periods. The "stagnation" myth comes from cherry-picking 1973 as a start date (peak of unusual post-WWII conditions) or confusing household income (affected by changing household composition) with individual wages.
Medical Debt
This conflates "medical debt exists" with "things are getting worse" and ignores the income side of the equation. Actually:
US disposable income is 20-40% higher than most European countries, Canada, Australia (per Luxembourg Income Study)
Even lower-income Americans (20th percentile) often have higher disposable income than the median in countries with "free" healthcare
So even when Americans face medical costs, they typically have more money left over than someone in a "free healthcare" country who paid $0 out-of-pocket
Plus, we're getting dramatically more healthcare value:
Life expectancy: 70 years (1960) → 79 years (pre-COVID)
Infant mortality down 90% since 1960
Cancer death rates down 33% since 1991
We can now treat/cure diseases that were death sentences decades ago
Those "free" systems aren't actually free—they're pre-paid through 20-25% VAT, much higher income taxes, and double the payroll taxes. Americans just have the money upfront instead. Medical bankruptcy claims are also wildly exaggerated (studies count any bankruptcy where someone had any medical debt, even when job loss or credit cards were the real cause).
Housing Prices
This one requires nuance. Housing costs have increased in desirable metro areas, but:
Median home size: 1,000 sq ft (1950s) → 2,300 sq ft today
Modern homes include central air, multiple bathrooms, attached garages—luxuries in the past
Quality-adjusted, we're getting more house
The real problem? Restrictive zoning laws preventing construction (artificial scarcity, not capitalism failing)
Also, homeownership rates remain around 65%—roughly historical average.
Climate Collapse
"Collapse" is apocalyptic rhetoric unsupported by data:
Air pollution in developed nations has plummeted (US: 78% drop in major pollutants since 1970)
Water quality vastly improved
Deforestation in developed countries reversed (US forest coverage increasing)
Clean energy costs dropped 90%+ (solar/wind now cheapest energy sources)
Agricultural yields up 3x since 1960 on roughly same land
Climate change is real and requires action, but technological progress is solving it. Emissions are plateauing/declining in developed economies while living standards rise.
Expensive, Unhealthy Food
Objectively false:
Americans spend ~10% of income on food vs. 20%+ historically and 30-40%+ in developing nations
Food has never been cheaper relative to wages
Variety and quality are incomparable—year-round fresh produce, international cuisines, organic options
"Unhealthy" food exists because of abundance and choice, not scarcity. People can afford calorie-dense foods. Obesity is a wealth problem, not a poverty problem (historically, only the rich were fat).
The Core Rebuttal
These talking points cherry-pick problems while ignoring that every metric of human welfare has improved: poverty rates down, literacy up, child mortality down 90%+, access to technology/information/entertainment exploded, work hours declined, retirement savings up.
You're comparing modern problems to an imaginary past that never existed. Life in 1950 meant: no internet, limited medical care, worse food variety, actual wage stagnation for women/minorities, more dangerous jobs, shorter lifespans, and fewer opportunities.
Progress isn't perfect, but denying it happened requires ignoring overwhelming evidence.
I have got to start following you. Thanks for all the great data!
Right. Neoliberalism wasn’t the problem, it was that we let the growth of wealth that resulted from it primarily benefit the top. Neoliberalism should still be the goal, but it should benefit more people in the process.
The point of free markets with minimal interference is to actually use the market to help us solve problems. In this case the “problem” that emerged with global markets is that they introduced a billion lower skilled workers into the system. This reduced demand relative to skilled labor and entrepreneurial talent and capital. Thus the market did its magic and incentivized skill, ideas and capital. Thus we get the greatest enrichment of people ever, with a side effect being increased inequality and dynamism within developed nations (where skills and capital are housed). The market in effect was telling all of us to invest and get educated.
Markets, which neoliberalism values, are complex adaptive problem solving systems.
If you want markets that divy up the goods according to your biases, you don’t really want markets at all. All you get is broken markets.
The current fetish over “equality” (of outcome) is in my opinion one of the greatest framing errors of our era.(Not to be confused with equality of process, ie basic fairness).
Exactly. Is the goal unlimited GDP growth and unlimited billionaire wealth or is it happy healthy population with large productive families?
Excellent article. Those who disagree should read some material written by free-market economists. I recommend "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell as an introductory book.
This is stupid and not helping anyone.
I got four likes, which indicates that at least four people disagree with you. Instead of giving some reason to believe my comment is stupid and unhelpful, you insult me. Your comment is an example of what you accuse me of. You might find it helpful to study reasoning and critical thinking.
Your comment was stupid and ironic, hence it was not helpful. If it was serious, well that is even worse.
Your last comment indicates that you're invincibly ignorant. I take back what I said. I believe a course in reasoning and critical thinking would be wasted on you, since I doubt that you're persuadable. Consequently, I'll waste no more of my time on you. Go back to your Xbox, and don't expect any more replies to your comments.
I literally don't care what you think, if I haven't made that clear. Goodbye moron.
A political system that everyone hates leading to the kind of political crisis we're in now is definitionally not one that works
the crisis we're in now is because we're _abandoning_ neoliberalism for populism.
Got to agree with Clay here (though I greatly admire Freddie as a writer). We have been on an extended journey to abandon what worked, and now we are getting populist idiocracy.
Pray tell, what are the political systems that “everyone” doesn't hate and don't experience crises?
I believe Freddie prefers Communism. Though he never seems to write about it any more.
Clearly.
I have long considered myself a neoliberal...but a neoliberal with a heart. I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.
Neoliberalism gets a bad rap because of the way its purists proponents demand that it be practiced, and the way the purest possible practices of it inevitably lead to corruption and government capture by the wealthy.
Notice I said "purest possible practices", not "pure practice". I say it this way because it points to the huge hole in libertarian thinking on neoliberalism that opponents of neoliberalism feel in their guts even if they rarely articulate it well. Simply, people are lazy and greedy and if they can they will do what they can to rig the game to their advantage. Sure if neoliberalism could be practiced in its pure form it would work great, but pure practice is impossible. Even getting kinda sorta close is impossible.
Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful, and deludes itself into believing that a small government can act as an incorruptible referee that would allow "the invisible hand" to work its magic. What in the history of mankind supports this delusion? It's an astonishingly naive faith based notion.
The wealthy have never been restrained by markets. Throughout history, at every turn, they have rigged the markets and given the invisible hand the middle finger. Nothing in orthodox neoliberal philosophy can restrain the powerful and prevent them from rentseeking and government capture. But neoliberalism can’t work if the powerful can rig the game. The only way to save neoliberalism is to go outside of it.
The only thing that has ever blunted the ability of the wealthy and powerful to rig the game in their favor is giving significant governmental power to workers and consumers. While everyday people aren’t going to act as intentional agents of the markets, they will, like the wealthy, try and rig the game in their favor, the mutual restraining of the two agents corrupting influences acts as an effective limiting force on both. Not in any perfect or ideal way. No. It’s a crazy incoherent messy way. But it’s a very human way. And it works as long as neither side gets too much of an advantage. History shows us that maintaining balance is difficult, and that at times we will fail to do so. But governments not markets are the only things that have had any success at it. It’s not the size of the government that matters, It’s how well it maintains that balance.
Parallel to the neoliberal revolution, that shrank the world, broke down cultural barriers, increased humanity’s tolerance for our differences, increased our appreciation for the cultures of others, enriched the globe and lifted billions out of poverty, we here in the US had a neoliberal revolution in our laws and government.
At the same time barriers were being broken down to let wealth flow freely to reshape the world, here in the US our laws were changed to let wealth flow freely to reshape our politics.
The tax burden on the wealthy was decreased, contributing to an historic wealth gap. Right to work laws and other government roadblocks gutted unions. “Citizens United” is based on a neoliberal outlook. Law after law that were barriers to the super wealthy were struck down and replaced with laws that granted them rights to transform their disproportionate wealth into disproportionate political power.
It is the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our laws that have brought our democracy to near collapse and our government captured by a segment of wealthy interests who have successfully found favor with our corrupt president. It’s the philosophy of neoliberalism applied to our rule of law by our Supreme Court that allows him to do it.
It’s the right wing fatih in,and applied dogma of neoliberalism that has brought our economy to a state that is profoundly anti neoliberal.
After all that I imagine people saying… “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!” I call myself a neoliberal because I believe, no, I know, that within a framework, it works. It works great. I believe that markets are the best and most efficient ways to allocate and distribute wealth. Where I differ from orthodox neoliberals is I reject their utopian, ridiculous faith in markets being self regulating.
I said…”I believe in a neoliberalism that has a realistic view of humanity’s weaknesses and makes allowances for them instead of seeing them as something that needs to exclusively be punished.”
For example, I think we should force people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational, like housing, healthcare, retirement and education. Citizens who can't afford to meet that minimum amount would have their investments subsidized by the government to bring them up to that minimum level. The return on those investments will be guaranteed by the government.
All of what I advocate above is the kinda thing I mean by making allowances for human weakness. It’s ridiculously opposed to neoliberal orthodoxy. It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government. It transfers wealth down the ladder. It empowers the average joe, despite himself.
It’s exactly what neoliberal darling Singapore does. Neoliberalism can have a heart. It can be realistic about human weakness and make accommodation for them instead of defaulting to social darwinism.
Not only can Neoliberalism have a heart, it works best when it has one, and dies when it doesn’t.
> Pure Neoliberalism breaks all shackles on the wealthy and powerful
utter nonsense. the "neo" distinguishes it from classical liberalism, and entails that it supports addressing market failures (negative externalities, monopolies, etc.) as well as supporting redistribution (ideally with minimal deadweight loss).
https://cnliberalism.org/posts/how-modern-neoliberals-rediscovered-neoliberalism
Is interesting that there other neo-liberal like me
That just lovely
I am also neoliberal
I have found over the years that my views tend to get rejected from both sides. lol
Similar Case
My political views is Also rejected by left and right
Handuan ! Ah ! BUT the CENTRE loves you !!
Yeah I know
I do veiw myself centrist
And I do agree with many centrists stance like correct market failures for example
William Ellis states: "I have long considered myself a neoliberal........but a neoliberal with a heart."......and........"For example, I think we should FORCE people to invest a minimum amount of their hard earned income in accounts that can only be used for certain things the government deems rational..........It is incredibly coercive. It is Big Brother government.
It transfers wealth down the ladder.....[ but probably into an "official's BANK ACCOUNT" ]
It empowers the average joe, despite himself.........“ That's "Even getting kinda sorta close " to a Mafia neoliberal .........with a gun ! [ If you are going to enforce it ! ]
He also states : “How in the hell can this guy call himself a neoliberal ? He’s fucking nuts!”
Finally !............ At last I can agree with you !!!
lol. I don't think you know how singapore's social welfare system works. Either that or you think they practice Mafia neoliberalism.
From 4chan shitposter to Francis Fukuyama II is an amazing career arc.
I was just reading something of his yesterday on Substack and thinking to myself how he has progressed to one of the more open minded and interesting authors out there.
Neoliberalism has improved more lives, faster, than any economic system in the history of the human race. It has substantially increased the global supply of lower skilled labor, leading to lower wage gains for poorly educated people in the West, even as it increases demand for capital and skill. This creates the inequality of outcomes that has been illegitimately used to criticize the program.
Your are saying that open-borders immigration lead to law gain wage or I misunderstood question?
I am saying that global markets brought in over a billion lower skilled workers. The increased supply relative to capital and skilled labor drove down the price of labor and drove up the returns to skills, entrepreneurial talent and capital.
The net result was a billion people lifted out of poverty, but creating higher inequality (which is a GOOD THING) in developed nations.
bingo.
I doubt any western system of economic practice, neoliberalism included, has much of any impact, but is mearly coincident with other factors. My very crude unacademic take is that starting in the 80s we had (1) the computer revolution, (2) the Internet revolution, and 3) full globalization of trade. These each successively drove inovation and productivity. But now, in the lull, we are waiting and hoping for the next big thing.
allowing global trade...
IS A CORE TENENT OF NEOLIBERALISM.
A start to a counterargument
what is neoliberalism in practice in America?
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
Some of the drawbacks:
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/shareholder-primacy-culture-and-american
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/america-is-unlikely-to-defeat-a-peer
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/social-consequences-of-economic-evolution
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-sp-culture-produces-financial
"There has also been a greater societal turn towards pessimism, related to, but in a sense independent of, the culture war."
The societal turn to pessimism has a negative impact on growth, progress and wellbeing.
couldn't agree more Victor!
The Optimism Effect is a phenomenon that shows optimism, particularly producer optimism, directly influences investment, innovation, and productivity, thereby driving economic growth.
I liked how this article give interesting view on neoliberalism and package of economic Liberalization of 80s/90s
The biggest missing piece of neoliberalism is the taxation of land rents, aka Georgism. Much of that free-flowing capital and wage growth gets sucked up by landed rentiers
just note that "neoliberalism" was originally formulated as essentially a "free market welfare state", seeing government as having a role to play in addressing market failures, and redistributing wealth. hence the "neo", as opposed to classical liberalism. you can read about this here.
https://cnliberalism.org/posts/how-modern-neoliberals-rediscovered-neoliberalism
only later was the term bizarrely associated with reagan and thatcher, who were more like classical liberals or just "conservatives", albeit it with a globalist zeal that perhaps warrants the term neoconservatism.
the problem with traditional progressive style redistribution is that it doesn't differentiate between efficiency effects (size of the pie) and distributional effects (equality of the slices). it's perfectly fine deploying minimum wage and rent control, or giving out in kind benefits like housing and food stamps. all of these policies distort the market in order to address equity concerns. the neoliberal insight is that we can redistribute wealth _without_ deadweight loss. chiefly, we can replace in kind benefits with a universal refundable tax credit aka "UBI", and use revenue sources like land value tax (zero deadweight loss) and pigovian taxes—which have _negative_ deadweight loss.
these instruments create progressive effective tax rates without creating progressive _marginal_ tax rates (which aren't neutral with respect to time), and also avoid welfare cliffs. they are just obviously the correct policy if you understand econ 101. yet we're stuck in a dysfunctional situation where the left wants to distort markets in order to promote redistribution, and the right is largely anti-redistribution. (and now we have the maga populist right, which is economically worst of both worlds, virtually peronist.)
we just want the holy trinity: pigovian taxes, land value taxes, UBI.
Neoliberalism is to economic policy what an abusive partner is to love. It offers the language of freedom while concealing the hand of control. China liberalized without relinquishing authority; America deregulated while continuing to centralize power. Markets themselves are liberating—but when paired with an expanding central state, they do not mitigate its abuses; they mask them. The result is paradoxical: in opening markets, both nations co-opted the benefits of economic freedom and strengthened the very structures that maintain central authority.
https://open.substack.com/pub/delphicmirror/p/the-paradox-of-neoliberalism-a-critique?r=5d3u3o&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
For a much more thorough treatment of liberalism and it's failure than this tripe, read this instead:
https://open.substack.com/pub/frankwright/p/liberalism-the-god-that-failed-twice?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1a0ksg
Excellent points. As you said, neoliberalism definitely “emerged to deal with real problems”. The book “The Triumph of Broken Promises: The End of the Cold War and the Rise of Neoliberalism” contains a good overview on how neoliberalism prevailed despite widespread resistance in the West. Its analysis on how postponing neoliberal reforms doomed the Eastern Block is especially revealing. The author himself, Fritz Bartel, seems unsure of the inevitability of economic dynamics he describes, but his deeply grounded description speaks for itself.
Really !