The term itself was hardly known/in use to the general public before the crash 2008 and occupy. Since then it was only known as basically a different word for greed.
As another commenter (who obviously decided to delete his comment) wrote here, I also doubt that a re-branding will ever be successful. It's not like coming up with a new term in economy is something hard to do.
Also, the term is still not known/in use to the general public. The set of people who are politically active via Occupy, Tea Party, Trumpism, #Indivisible, etc. is a small subset of all people, and relatively disjoint from the set of people with successful Internet-based businesses.
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
So you agree that there was no rehabilitation then?
I still don't understand why you wouldn't just come up with a new term. Is this bad marketing knowledge or intentional?
It's a really common mistake to assume that the people you hang around with are representative of all people. The U.S. (let alone the world) is a really big place, and we don't all read the same media anymore.
However,
> They may not themselves want to adopt the label (particularly in front of their own customers, who bring their own baggage associated with it), but they'll be sympathetic to the ideas.
still stands here. Just from a quick lookup on wikipedia, you got to this statement. So if this is even obvious to you, we don't really have to talk about any kind of rehabilitation. The real issue would be some terribly bad informed people.
I'm reminded of something that I think I read here on Hacker News: if you want to see how you're being manipulated, read another country's newspapers. Not because they tell the truth, but because the propaganda in them is directed at the country's own inhabitants, and so it'll have no emotional importance for you. I look at the term "neoliberal" and view it neutrally, because the propaganda around it never really caught on in the U.S. out of certain very niche circles.
There are undoubtedly similar terms & issues in the U.S. where we get very much up in arms but an outsider would be "what's the big deal?" You could probably tell me what they are a lot better than I could (assuming you read U.S. news media), but I'd bet that things like "single payer", "gun control", and "social democracy" make the list, where half the U.S. population considers them a dirty word while most of the rest of the developed world is like "Duh, these are obviously good ideas. Why do you kill your own citizens?"
> things like "single payer", "gun control", and "social democracy"
You may be aware that many over here are interested in US politics and culture. It's a historical thing but it's also quite entertaining. I can say that I'm more interested and know more about what's going on in the US then in France or the Netherlands. At least most of the time. We are aware that those three things are being perceived differently by pretty much half of your population. This is nothing abstract here.
I don't think it's a thing in the US.
Good we have the Öffentlich Rechtlicher Rundfunk I guess ;)
One interesting consequence of the Internet is that we're becoming very aware that for every label you could ascribe to yourself, there is some group out there who holds a deep, visceral hate for that label, so deep that they wish you would just cease to exist. I guess this was probably the case beforehand, but without instantaneous global communication, you generally weren't aware of the people who hated you. I remember that when I was growing up, terms like "American", "patriotic", "tolerant", and "generous" were unambiguously good, but now for each of those there is some group who considers them a dog-whistle for people they despise.