The Economist was founded in 1843 to oppose the Corn Laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws

so there is nothing "neo" about their "liberal".

Doesn't it matter more about who they are today rather than who they were 180 years ago?

Not if you are trying to figure out if the prefix "neo" fits.

The prefix in neo-liberalism has more to do with the ideas not whether it is "new."

Still dedicated to free trade and putting markets to work to solve problems.

I’m not sure neoliberal and “lefty” are anywhere near synonyms either.

They aren't. But I find something amusing that The Economist (which I subscribe to) is frequently considered left-leaning

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist

whereas I see it what the center-right would be if we had a healthy media/political environment.

Impugns the source(s) trying to place them on the left-right axis more than anything.

They are classical liberal, which is impossible to place in the current US Left-Right spectrum because politics have become even dumber than previously thought possible

… politics aren’t just dumb in the US. The Economist is politically homeless these days and has little faith in Labor, Tories or Lib Dems.

Count how many times they use hard-left vs hard-right, or how many times they use hard-right vs any other kind of right.

It's confusing, but "liberal" and "neoliberal" are in fact antonyms.

Not really. Ever seen a "liberal" liberate or a "conservative" conserve?

The term got its current usage when FDR came in because at that time it was a matter of "burn it all down" (real socialism) vs "fix the private property system around the margins".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I think by liberal he meant the Edwardian liberal. It's the predominant meaning of that label in the US

Based on this comment tree, I'm tempted to believe neither of them mean anything. Or at least very few people are aware of whatever real definition they have. But many people have opinions about it.

They do mean things, but most who toss the words around only use it to mean "thing that I don't like"

> Or at least very few people are aware of whatever real definition they have

I mean, like many things, the meaning of 'liberal' has shifted over the last few centuries, and always differed somewhat between regions anyway. Words in English mean what people use them to mean.

They're not _that_ far off being antonyms, really; neoliberalism certainly shares distant origins with the left, but that's about as far as it goes.

Fair enough from a pedantic point of view, but I was using the term in this sense, as it is the most recognizable modern term to describe serious economic positions of this kind:

Neoliberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free markets, reduced government intervention, and individual liberty. It's often associated with policies like deregulation, privatization, and free trade. Proponents believe these measures foster economic growth, efficiency, and individual prosperity. However, critics argue that neoliberal policies can lead to increased inequality, social instability, and exploitation

And my point was here they were applauding policies involving clear government intervention.

> they were applauding policies involving clear government intervention

Yes the Economist will do that, because they believe in classical liberal markets

(neo)liberal != libertarian.

The government has a clear role for internalizing externalities, which makes markets more efficient. Or, in this case, using price signals to allocate scarce resources when it was just a free-for-all before.

Congestion pricing seems like a pretty liberal policy to me. Using supply and demand to set a price.

Sure, you could crank the Friedman dial to 11 by say, privatizing the roads and letting the operators set the price based on competition.

But the policy is liberal at its core. A “lefty, collectively enforced” policy would be something like a quota or permit system.

A key difference being that anyone who wants to drive on the road can do so as long as they pay. It isn’t “everyone with odd license plate numbers can drive today, evens can drive tomorrow” but rather “you can drive today if it’s worth $9 to you”.

It is classist. If it was liberal, then it would be based on % of someone's wealth (and using progressive scale).

These policies are aimed at getting unwashed pleb off the roads so the rich can show off their cars in peace.

All the poor people on the buses were never gonna drive and now have faster more reliable service

Additionally all those emergency vehicles are going to have an easier time shuttling patients to hospitals and firefighters to fires. The whole spectrum benefits from that, not just the rich.

how are they going to have more reliable service?

They mean that buses are now faster/more reliable.

Buses work better when there's less traffic.

Buses spend less time stuck in traffic.

Buses should serve both rich and poor. Otherwise this is a very definition of classism. The bus is the "back of the bus" now.

It’s classist to not want pedestrians in cities to die and get asthma from traffic?

Got it.

Amazing how pedestrian safety suddenly matters the moment it becomes a tool to justify purging the poor from city centres.

If you own a car and use it to get around in Manhattan you’re not “poor.” The poor are riding the bus.

I think you and the parent comment are confusing the term "liberal". He refers to "liberal" in the classical sense: free markets, limited government, rule of law, etc. You mean "liberal" in the North American sense: lefty, social justice, etc.

Free markets presume equal opportunity to access infrastructure, not the rich buying exclusive use of public goods.

Liberal and leftist are two entirely different things.

Charging for an scarce resource instead of letting the tragedy of the commons play out does sound like something obvious to come out of a neoliberal economist yes.

What is The Economist’s position on carbon taxes?

Update: wow you’re right: https://impact.economist.com/sustainability/net-zero-and-ene...

That’s an op-ed btw.

> The views expressed in the blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Economist Impact or the sponsor.

So not necessarily reflective of The Economist’s position.

The Economist has long been pretty outspoken over their preference for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade (see any article they write about carbon emissions).

Even Bjorn Lomborg who is against most climate change policies is for a carbon tax.

https://lomborg.com/news/how-avoid-political-pitfalls-carbon...

Carbon taxes have always been a conservative/neo-liberal idea.

Modern 'conservatives' abandoning them tells you a lot about how far their politics have shifted over the past decade.

Just like the ACA/Obamacare was very similar to a proposal that came out of the Heritage Foundation, but was universally hated by the people on that side.

Flat rates are not the only way to allocate scarce resources. Generally they would be called "regressive", even.

Well it's a flat rate on car drivers in Manhattan. How regressive is it really?

While I support congestion pricing, I will say that The Economist is most notable these days a negative oracle: whatever it predicts, the opposite will happen.

Such as?

The Jim Cramer of macroeconomics? :)

They were spot on about post covid stimulus fueling inflation.

Examples? Counter-example: the Economist predicted the 2007 sub-prime crisis and housing price crash.