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.