The replacement I would like to see is strict regulation which doesn't pick winners but instead aims at forcing the markets as close as possible to a Perfect Market. This along with a social...
The replacement I would like to see is strict regulation which doesn't pick winners but instead aims at forcing the markets as close as possible to a Perfect Market.
This along with a social safety net that makes choosing not to work livable if spartan & scaled such that any earnings always increase your quality of life.
If we were utterly secure in those policies you could get rid of the minimum wage and the social spending which create perverse incentives.
Can't see that gaining any political traction though!
I full agree with you, I just worry about the idea of "strict regulation which doesn't pick winners". Very often it seems like contracts go to friends of the government. I 100% support a negative...
I full agree with you, I just worry about the idea of "strict regulation which doesn't pick winners". Very often it seems like contracts go to friends of the government.
I 100% support a negative income tax (basic income that goes away at an incremental rate as your income grows) to provide basic necessities to all people. I still think Food, housing, and healthcare are a human right.
Mistake not my current state of gentle joshing peevishness... I've edited in a wikipedia link and a more helpful phrase, this chain should be buried at this point I feel. But I'm not de-voting for...
Mistake not my current state of gentle joshing peevishness...
I've edited in a wikipedia link and a more helpful phrase, this chain should be buried at this point I feel. But I'm not de-voting for malice.
It's a bit off-topic but /r/daystrominstitute is one of my favorite subreddits! Thank you @Algernon_Asimov for your help in making a great community there. Who knows, maybe it will end up on...
It's a bit off-topic but /r/daystrominstitute is one of my favorite subreddits! Thank you @Algernon_Asimov for your help in making a great community there. Who knows, maybe it will end up on Tildes eventually!
That is off-topic! But thank you. Given the way Tildes is intended to work, I very much doubt that Daystrom will end up here. However, that doesn't mean you won't have good discussions in...
That is off-topic! But thank you.
Given the way Tildes is intended to work, I very much doubt that Daystrom will end up here. However, that doesn't mean you won't have good discussions in ~tv.startrek in the future.
This article is interesting, but to me it reads like a strawman. For example, I don't think anyone here will defend Pinochet, and Hayek should be condemned for his support of the regime. Yet, in...
This article is interesting, but to me it reads like a strawman.
For example, I don't think anyone here will defend Pinochet, and Hayek should be condemned for his support of the regime. Yet, in regards to his ideas of liberal dictatorship vs democracy without liberty, Hayek says on the subject of liberalism vs democracy "The first is concerned with the extent of governmental power, the second with who holds this power." From there we can see more nuance in his view. It's not that he'd prefer a repressive dictatorship if at least people got to buy cheap junk, it's that he would prefer a system with less governmental power and control, even if it was a dictatorship, than one with more governmental control. He was very concerned of the tyranny of the majority - something that we all should be concerned about, especially in the everpresent climate of majority peoples denying the rights of minority peoples.
And then of course there's the idea that "Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident." I mean, maybe Thatcher's ghost believes that, but I know plenty of Neoliberals who don't believe that. This article creates the most vile, unapologetic Neoliberal boogyman imagineable, then tears it to shreds.
I don't see your nice pals self describing as Neoliberals whilst not being total bastards as a very good defense of the ideology. Neoliberal politicians of one stripe or another have held power in...
I don't see your nice pals self describing as Neoliberals whilst not being total bastards as a very good defense of the ideology.
Neoliberal politicians of one stripe or another have held power in the US & UK since Thatcher and Reagan. If there are problems in these countries it seems fair to argue that the prevailing ideology is to blame. That is certainly the treatment Stalinism gets I don't see that Neoliberalism getting the same is a "strawman".
The thing is I really don't believe that any of the UK PMs have been neoliberal. Cameron and Major were far too right wing, where the Labour PMs would be more on the side of Neoliberalism but...
The thing is I really don't believe that any of the UK PMs have been neoliberal. Cameron and Major were far too right wing, where the Labour PMs would be more on the side of Neoliberalism but Labor as a whole is ideologically opposed.
Sure, this is 100% a no true scotsman deal, and I'll give you that. But ultimately the author uses that to his advantage by picking every possible economic ill and blaming it on Neoliberals, precisely because nobody knows what it means. It essentially becomes a descriptor for all things the author is against. That's exactly why saying "Communism is bad" is a statement more or less devoid of reason. Neoliberalism is still a really odd ideology, a free market reaction against both Keynesianism and classic liberalism.
The privatization, the low financial regulation (google when New Labour's FSA prosecuted their first insider trading case)... what ideology if not Neoliberal? Cameron called himself the 'heir to...
The privatization, the low financial regulation (google when New Labour's FSA prosecuted their first insider trading case)... what ideology if not Neoliberal? Cameron called himself the 'heir to Blair', Clegg was an orange booker.
Maybe I've just lived under a rock, but that's not what I consider to be Neoliberalism. Hillary Clinton was called a "neoliberal", but if we're going to also call Reagan a neoliberal (and I...
Maybe I've just lived under a rock, but that's not what I consider to be Neoliberalism. Hillary Clinton was called a "neoliberal", but if we're going to also call Reagan a neoliberal (and I consider him a neoconservative) then I suppose I agree with you that it's not good.
I think the issue at hand is that Neoliberal has been used as an insult for people as left as HRC and Barack Obama, and people as right as Reagan and Pinochet.
Neither Clinton nor Obama were "left". They were centre right at best, and followed neoliberal economic policy. Just like Blair, Brown and the whole New Labour project.
Neither Clinton nor Obama were "left". They were centre right at best, and followed neoliberal economic policy. Just like Blair, Brown and the whole New Labour project.
Here in Australia, our left-wing Labor Party took a determined step to the right in the 80s & 90s while it was in government, by embracing some aspects of neoliberalism just after the...
Here in Australia, our left-wing Labor Party took a determined step to the right in the 80s & 90s while it was in government, by embracing some aspects of neoliberalism just after the Thatcher-Reagan period of neoliberalism. Since then, both major political parties in Australia have had a neoliberalist tendency; the right-wing Liberal Party moreso than the nominally left-wing Labor Party, but it's still present in both parties. The Labor Party keeps trying to move back to its left-wing roots, but never quite succeeds. I believe this is a case of the Overton Window in Australia having moved towards neoliberalist ideals: our whole political discourse includes the assumption that deregulation is good.
As for American politics... they're so far right that even their nominally left-wing party barely counts as centre-right.
Neoliberalism is so pervasive that we don't even notice how pervasive it is. It has shifted our whole political discourse right-ward in the past 30 years.
Personally, if you know neoliberals who don't favor austerity, privatization, deregulation, etc. then they aren't actually neoliberals. They are just people who identified as neoliberals for a...
I mean, maybe Thatcher's ghost believes that, but I know plenty of Neoliberals who don't believe that. This article creates the most vile, unapologetic Neoliberal boogyman imagineable, then tears it to shreds.
Personally, if you know neoliberals who don't favor austerity, privatization, deregulation, etc. then they aren't actually neoliberals. They are just people who identified as neoliberals for a long time, internalized it, and now don't want to admit the massive, MASSIVE failures of their ideology. So neoliberals are now pretending that they actually stand for different things and not the policies that have robbed the middle and lower classes blind over the past several decades.
Neoliberals are just engaging in the same "That's not what neoliberalism really means", that everyone else does when their ideology gets pantsed in front of the whole world.
From my perspective, it's more like: "Never mind structural unemployment. Never mind the impossible costs of housing."
"Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident."
From my perspective, it's more like: "Never mind structural unemployment. Never mind the impossible costs of housing."
I think a lot of people view Neoliberals' dismal outlook on housing as different than it actually is. Prices are information - impossible housing costs means build more houses. Structural...
I think a lot of people view Neoliberals' dismal outlook on housing as different than it actually is. Prices are information - impossible housing costs means build more houses.
Structural unemployment is a whole different beast, and one I don't feel qualified to comment on.
I hate seeing "neoliberalism" thrown around as a boogeyman term like this instead of the neoconservatism that is actually harming people. Modern day neoliberalism looks very different from the...
I hate seeing "neoliberalism" thrown around as a boogeyman term like this instead of the neoconservatism that is actually harming people. Modern day neoliberalism looks very different from the Reaganomics that this article seems to imply. Neoliberals are pro-market, yes, but not anti-regulation in any way. Here's a good place to start reading on what modern-day neoliberalism is.
Because that isn't the meaning of the word. Neoliberalism stands for deregulation and austerity, so they are very much anti-regulation. People who believe otherwise are lying to themselves and...
Because that isn't the meaning of the word. Neoliberalism stands for deregulation and austerity, so they are very much anti-regulation. People who believe otherwise are lying to themselves and other people about what neoliberalism is. The word you looking for is just plain old "liberal".
But that isn't what neoliberalism is about anymore? The Republican party still claims that they're the party of Lincoln but we all know that the Southern Strategy changed that. Libertarianism fits...
But that isn't what neoliberalism is about anymore? The Republican party still claims that they're the party of Lincoln but we all know that the Southern Strategy changed that. Libertarianism fits the description that you gave, and plain old "liberal" doesn't even seem to refer to pro-free-market views anymore. The way words are used dictates their meaning, not the other way around. I would describe neoliberalism as much closer to social democracy today.
I'm using the accepted political science definitions, not whatever rebranding strategy people are pushing. Just because the US abuses the word liberal doesn't mean we should allow neoliberals to...
I'm using the accepted political science definitions, not whatever rebranding strategy people are pushing. Just because the US abuses the word liberal doesn't mean we should allow neoliberals to abuse the word neoliberal as well to shirk their well-earned scorn. Neoliberalism and libertarianism are extremely compatible, its just that neoliberalism is more narrowly focused on economic policies whereas libertarianism comprises all social issues as well as economic.
These kinds of propaganda campaigns need to be fought, tooth-and-nail. The Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. Neoliberals are not even close to social democrats.
The policies that have put us into the mess we're currently are neoliberal policies, there shall be no propaganda campaigns to rehabilitate those people and beliefs. Former neoliberals can renounce their disastrous past like responsible people instead of rewriting history to obfuscate the issue.
Neoconservativism refers to foreign policy, not domestic. Neoconservatives are people who want to use military force to spread democracy, for example, a large portion of the Iraq War supporters...
Neoconservativism refers to foreign policy, not domestic. Neoconservatives are people who want to use military force to spread democracy, for example, a large portion of the Iraq War supporters were neocons.
It feels like this article is giving a name to something I've been hearing about my whole life and never knew how to express. I was unfamiliar with the term Neoliberal and its meaning prior to...
It feels like this article is giving a name to something I've been hearing about my whole life and never knew how to express. I was unfamiliar with the term Neoliberal and its meaning prior to reading this article.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.
The name itself sounds like the opposite of what is actually does. My whole life (I'm in my early 30s) I've been hearing 'vote with your wallet' as the solution to all the problems with corporations. I never realized that this was a named policy before now. It feels like a lot of things make more sense now that there's a name that covers this mindset, which I see as toxic and responsible for many of the current failings of our economic policies.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.
It sounds like we need to be shining a light on this, so people can learn what they have been facing all this time. We've got a name for the problem, and a way to accurately describe the people behind it. We should be calling them out, drawing attention to them. They are able to get away with this because they hide behind anonymity while enacting these policies that reduce taxes on the wealthy and remove regulations from corporations. Perhaps in knowing that Neoliberalism is behind so many of the problematic policies of the last 50 years, we can mobilize people to oppose it.
This is a totally new philosophy for me to digest. Can you go into more detail about what 'welfare capitalist' means specifically? Also what you mean by 'George W. Bush' in this context? I'd...
This is a totally new philosophy for me to digest. Can you go into more detail about what 'welfare capitalist' means specifically? Also what you mean by 'George W. Bush' in this context? I'd genuinely like to understand the concept better.
Here's the first article I read on neoliberalism, that I think describes the basics of the ideology well. Obviously, it's much more nuanced than one article will show, but I find it much closer to...
Here's the first article I read on neoliberalism, that I think describes the basics of the ideology well. Obviously, it's much more nuanced than one article will show, but I find it much closer to social democracy than what the OP is suggesting neoliberalism is.
Welfare capitalism is a belief that the free market is fantastic, but at the same time, taxes are, too, and nations should try to raise their poor up and care for them. Neoliberalism is close to...
Welfare capitalism is a belief that the free market is fantastic, but at the same time, taxes are, too, and nations should try to raise their poor up and care for them.
Neoliberalism is close to that, on a global scale. The free market is fantastic, tariffs are bad, taxation is good, nations should try to help all other nations' people if possible, and etcetera.
For example, on the left, the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is popular, and the right despises it.
The neoliberal stance on it is that we should implement a similar, but not parallel, concept to a UBI called a Negative Income Tax (NIT).
While a UBI gives everyone $X of currency a month, a NIT gives people below a locally decided livable income a dynamic amount of currency to meet that number, with the rationale that if someone isn't making it, it's the government's fault, not the citizen's. After you get past that line, you start to be taxed as normal.
When George W. Bush became president, people began to mock him with the title of 'Neoliberal.' This obviously wasn't an accurate title, from the history of the word (which began to gain usage far before G.W.B. was in the public eye), but when has accuracy ever concerned anyone?
So the perception of the term became a mirror of his views, which, as every neoliberal, leftist, centrist, and some right-wingers will agree, suck.
How is that different than social democracy? What you're describing is just neoliberals who have been neoliberals trying to redefine the word neoliberal so they don't get correctly pegged as the...
How is that different than social democracy?
What you're describing is just neoliberals who have been neoliberals trying to redefine the word neoliberal so they don't get correctly pegged as the underlying cause of many of society's problems, that they caused.
The first step is not allowing neoliberals to pretend that they are not responsible for the problems they have created, like is happening all over this thread. They are trying to move into the...
Perhaps in knowing that Neoliberalism is behind so many of the problematic policies of the last 50 years, we can mobilize people to oppose it.
The first step is not allowing neoliberals to pretend that they are not responsible for the problems they have created, like is happening all over this thread. They are trying to move into the territory occupied by social democracy and left-wing liberals. Don't let them pretend that neoliberalism isn't a right-wing rebirth of classical liberalism, because that is exactly what it is.
Don't let them obfuscate the actual problem is and who is responsible, because it's primarily them.
Not to me. Here in Australia, we have a Liberal Party, which is our mainstream right-wing party. The "liberal" in their name comes from the fact that they were created 70 years ago to be a...
The name itself sounds like the opposite of what is actually does.
Not to me. Here in Australia, we have a Liberal Party, which is our mainstream right-wing party. The "liberal" in their name comes from the fact that they were created 70 years ago to be a free-market anti-regulation party: their founder believed in a liberal (i.e. "free") market. So, to me, "neo-liberal" follows this trend of wanting free markets for everything, but reinvented for the modern context.
The replacement I would like to see is strict regulation which doesn't pick winners but instead aims at forcing the markets as close as possible to a Perfect Market.
This along with a social safety net that makes choosing not to work livable if spartan & scaled such that any earnings always increase your quality of life.
If we were utterly secure in those policies you could get rid of the minimum wage and the social spending which create perverse incentives.
Can't see that gaining any political traction though!
I full agree with you, I just worry about the idea of "strict regulation which doesn't pick winners". Very often it seems like contracts go to friends of the government.
I 100% support a negative income tax (basic income that goes away at an incremental rate as your income grows) to provide basic necessities to all people. I still think Food, housing, and healthcare are a human right.
edit: Yeah, can't forget education as well
Add education to that as well. Access to education for all is vital.
You might need to explain this for the Star Trek fans among us who know that "EMH" stands for Emergency Medical Hologram. :)
EMH probably refers to the Efficient-market hypothesis
I'd be cool with that too:
Anyway turns out I meant Perfect Market rather than EMH so I've edited that in.
:)
However... despite my joking tone, that was a serious request. I have no idea what "EMH" means apart from "Emergency Medical Hologram".
Mistake not my current state of gentle joshing peevishness...
I've edited in a wikipedia link and a more helpful phrase, this chain should be buried at this point I feel. But I'm not de-voting for malice.
It's a bit off-topic but /r/daystrominstitute is one of my favorite subreddits! Thank you @Algernon_Asimov for your help in making a great community there. Who knows, maybe it will end up on Tildes eventually!
That is off-topic! But thank you.
Given the way Tildes is intended to work, I very much doubt that Daystrom will end up here. However, that doesn't mean you won't have good discussions in ~tv.startrek in the future.
This article is interesting, but to me it reads like a strawman.
For example, I don't think anyone here will defend Pinochet, and Hayek should be condemned for his support of the regime. Yet, in regards to his ideas of liberal dictatorship vs democracy without liberty, Hayek says on the subject of liberalism vs democracy "The first is concerned with the extent of governmental power, the second with who holds this power." From there we can see more nuance in his view. It's not that he'd prefer a repressive dictatorship if at least people got to buy cheap junk, it's that he would prefer a system with less governmental power and control, even if it was a dictatorship, than one with more governmental control. He was very concerned of the tyranny of the majority - something that we all should be concerned about, especially in the everpresent climate of majority peoples denying the rights of minority peoples.
And then of course there's the idea that "Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident." I mean, maybe Thatcher's ghost believes that, but I know plenty of Neoliberals who don't believe that. This article creates the most vile, unapologetic Neoliberal boogyman imagineable, then tears it to shreds.
I don't see your nice pals self describing as Neoliberals whilst not being total bastards as a very good defense of the ideology.
Neoliberal politicians of one stripe or another have held power in the US & UK since Thatcher and Reagan. If there are problems in these countries it seems fair to argue that the prevailing ideology is to blame. That is certainly the treatment Stalinism gets I don't see that Neoliberalism getting the same is a "strawman".
The thing is I really don't believe that any of the UK PMs have been neoliberal. Cameron and Major were far too right wing, where the Labour PMs would be more on the side of Neoliberalism but Labor as a whole is ideologically opposed.
Sure, this is 100% a no true scotsman deal, and I'll give you that. But ultimately the author uses that to his advantage by picking every possible economic ill and blaming it on Neoliberals, precisely because nobody knows what it means. It essentially becomes a descriptor for all things the author is against. That's exactly why saying "Communism is bad" is a statement more or less devoid of reason. Neoliberalism is still a really odd ideology, a free market reaction against both Keynesianism and classic liberalism.
The privatization, the low financial regulation (google when New Labour's FSA prosecuted their first insider trading case)... what ideology if not Neoliberal? Cameron called himself the 'heir to Blair', Clegg was an orange booker.
Maybe I've just lived under a rock, but that's not what I consider to be Neoliberalism. Hillary Clinton was called a "neoliberal", but if we're going to also call Reagan a neoliberal (and I consider him a neoconservative) then I suppose I agree with you that it's not good.
I think the issue at hand is that Neoliberal has been used as an insult for people as left as HRC and Barack Obama, and people as right as Reagan and Pinochet.
Neither Clinton nor Obama were "left". They were centre right at best, and followed neoliberal economic policy. Just like Blair, Brown and the whole New Labour project.
I think tis worth clarifying "Economic Left" in this sort of discussion, although I completely agree with you.
Here in Australia, our left-wing Labor Party took a determined step to the right in the 80s & 90s while it was in government, by embracing some aspects of neoliberalism just after the Thatcher-Reagan period of neoliberalism. Since then, both major political parties in Australia have had a neoliberalist tendency; the right-wing Liberal Party moreso than the nominally left-wing Labor Party, but it's still present in both parties. The Labor Party keeps trying to move back to its left-wing roots, but never quite succeeds. I believe this is a case of the Overton Window in Australia having moved towards neoliberalist ideals: our whole political discourse includes the assumption that deregulation is good.
As for American politics... they're so far right that even their nominally left-wing party barely counts as centre-right.
Neoliberalism is so pervasive that we don't even notice how pervasive it is. It has shifted our whole political discourse right-ward in the past 30 years.
Personally, if you know neoliberals who don't favor austerity, privatization, deregulation, etc. then they aren't actually neoliberals. They are just people who identified as neoliberals for a long time, internalized it, and now don't want to admit the massive, MASSIVE failures of their ideology. So neoliberals are now pretending that they actually stand for different things and not the policies that have robbed the middle and lower classes blind over the past several decades.
Neoliberals are just engaging in the same "That's not what neoliberalism really means", that everyone else does when their ideology gets pantsed in front of the whole world.
From my perspective, it's more like: "Never mind structural unemployment. Never mind the impossible costs of housing."
I think a lot of people view Neoliberals' dismal outlook on housing as different than it actually is. Prices are information - impossible housing costs means build more houses.
Structural unemployment is a whole different beast, and one I don't feel qualified to comment on.
Are there dictatorships with limited power and control?
No, the idea is silly. But I took it rhetorically.
These were my thoughts exactly. I was kind of reluctant to say anything until I saw your comment
I hate seeing "neoliberalism" thrown around as a boogeyman term like this instead of the neoconservatism that is actually harming people. Modern day neoliberalism looks very different from the Reaganomics that this article seems to imply. Neoliberals are pro-market, yes, but not anti-regulation in any way. Here's a good place to start reading on what modern-day neoliberalism is.
Because that isn't the meaning of the word. Neoliberalism stands for deregulation and austerity, so they are very much anti-regulation. People who believe otherwise are lying to themselves and other people about what neoliberalism is. The word you looking for is just plain old "liberal".
But that isn't what neoliberalism is about anymore? The Republican party still claims that they're the party of Lincoln but we all know that the Southern Strategy changed that. Libertarianism fits the description that you gave, and plain old "liberal" doesn't even seem to refer to pro-free-market views anymore. The way words are used dictates their meaning, not the other way around. I would describe neoliberalism as much closer to social democracy today.
I'm using the accepted political science definitions, not whatever rebranding strategy people are pushing. Just because the US abuses the word liberal doesn't mean we should allow neoliberals to abuse the word neoliberal as well to shirk their well-earned scorn. Neoliberalism and libertarianism are extremely compatible, its just that neoliberalism is more narrowly focused on economic policies whereas libertarianism comprises all social issues as well as economic.
These kinds of propaganda campaigns need to be fought, tooth-and-nail. The Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. Neoliberals are not even close to social democrats.
The policies that have put us into the mess we're currently are neoliberal policies, there shall be no propaganda campaigns to rehabilitate those people and beliefs. Former neoliberals can renounce their disastrous past like responsible people instead of rewriting history to obfuscate the issue.
Neoconservativism refers to foreign policy, not domestic. Neoconservatives are people who want to use military force to spread democracy, for example, a large portion of the Iraq War supporters were neocons.
It feels like this article is giving a name to something I've been hearing about my whole life and never knew how to express. I was unfamiliar with the term Neoliberal and its meaning prior to reading this article.
The name itself sounds like the opposite of what is actually does. My whole life (I'm in my early 30s) I've been hearing 'vote with your wallet' as the solution to all the problems with corporations. I never realized that this was a named policy before now. It feels like a lot of things make more sense now that there's a name that covers this mindset, which I see as toxic and responsible for many of the current failings of our economic policies.
It sounds like we need to be shining a light on this, so people can learn what they have been facing all this time. We've got a name for the problem, and a way to accurately describe the people behind it. We should be calling them out, drawing attention to them. They are able to get away with this because they hide behind anonymity while enacting these policies that reduce taxes on the wealthy and remove regulations from corporations. Perhaps in knowing that Neoliberalism is behind so many of the problematic policies of the last 50 years, we can mobilize people to oppose it.
It's not entirely true! Check out @ne0liberal on Twitter and the like. Modern neoliberalism is 'welfare capitalist,' not 'George W. Bush."
This is a totally new philosophy for me to digest. Can you go into more detail about what 'welfare capitalist' means specifically? Also what you mean by 'George W. Bush' in this context? I'd genuinely like to understand the concept better.
Here's the first article I read on neoliberalism, that I think describes the basics of the ideology well. Obviously, it's much more nuanced than one article will show, but I find it much closer to social democracy than what the OP is suggesting neoliberalism is.
Sam's article is okay, and, albeit not exactly on the mark for most people, hits within the range generally speaking.
Welfare capitalism is a belief that the free market is fantastic, but at the same time, taxes are, too, and nations should try to raise their poor up and care for them.
Neoliberalism is close to that, on a global scale. The free market is fantastic, tariffs are bad, taxation is good, nations should try to help all other nations' people if possible, and etcetera.
For example, on the left, the idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is popular, and the right despises it.
The neoliberal stance on it is that we should implement a similar, but not parallel, concept to a UBI called a Negative Income Tax (NIT).
While a UBI gives everyone $X of currency a month, a NIT gives people below a locally decided livable income a dynamic amount of currency to meet that number, with the rationale that if someone isn't making it, it's the government's fault, not the citizen's. After you get past that line, you start to be taxed as normal.
When George W. Bush became president, people began to mock him with the title of 'Neoliberal.' This obviously wasn't an accurate title, from the history of the word (which began to gain usage far before G.W.B. was in the public eye), but when has accuracy ever concerned anyone?
So the perception of the term became a mirror of his views, which, as every neoliberal, leftist, centrist, and some right-wingers will agree, suck.
How is that different than social democracy?
What you're describing is just neoliberals who have been neoliberals trying to redefine the word neoliberal so they don't get correctly pegged as the underlying cause of many of society's problems, that they caused.
E: grammar
What modern politicians describing themselves as neoliberal have enacted 'welfare capitalaist' (Do you mean social democratic?) policies?
The first step is not allowing neoliberals to pretend that they are not responsible for the problems they have created, like is happening all over this thread. They are trying to move into the territory occupied by social democracy and left-wing liberals. Don't let them pretend that neoliberalism isn't a right-wing rebirth of classical liberalism, because that is exactly what it is.
Don't let them obfuscate the actual problem is and who is responsible, because it's primarily them.
Not to me. Here in Australia, we have a Liberal Party, which is our mainstream right-wing party. The "liberal" in their name comes from the fact that they were created 70 years ago to be a free-market anti-regulation party: their founder believed in a liberal (i.e. "free") market. So, to me, "neo-liberal" follows this trend of wanting free markets for everything, but reinvented for the modern context.