As a general rule, I'd be very cautious before assuming that a columnist for The Economist doesn't understand what he is talking about. You may disagree with his conclusions, but that's a different matter.

What I believe he's talking about is the introduction of free market dynamics to schools and single-payer health care, two institutions that have been resolutely socialist (in the classical sense of the word) for a long, long time. His belief is that these "modernizations" are destroying the institutions.

The author of the editorial is from the guardian, not the Economist.

The individual using the NHS/Schools as examples was the IMF author, not the editorial writer.

I never said either didn't understand economics. I said he didn't understand some of the words he was using. I was referring to the use of "neoliberalism" & "laissez faire"

> The author of the editorial is from the guardian, not the Economist.

True.

> The individual using the NHS/Schools as examples was the IMF author, not the editorial writer.

False. The NHS/Schools example comes (as is explicitly stated in the Guardian piece) from Will Davies, author of The Limits of Neoliberalism, a completely separate work from the IMF report.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the article in depth)

My interpretation: neo-liberals have tried to bring market forces to bear on the NHS and Universities - and this is the 'overreach' he is referring to. i.e. the fault isn't with the author - it's with those with overly expansive interpretations of market economics.

I'd say your right about the author of the study (which I am not going to waste time reading) and his NHS/Uni examples - but wrong about the author of the editorial - because it's definitely an editorial, not a piece of reporting.

Applying free market principles to government run services that should be government run like health care, schools -- where profit and efficiency are not goals is neoliberal.

This is another case of people discussing articles they didn't read.