1. I’m confused. To what extent is this community satire or ironic?

The active members of this community are genuine neoliberals as the philosophy is defined by the Mont Pelerin Society and more recent developments. Maybe you’ll come to find that you’re one too! However, we don’t take ourselves too seriously and make fun of pretty much the entire political spectrum, including ourselves. A good example would be our jokes about sweatshops. Are we actually thrilled about the often degrading conditions in such factories? No, of course not. However, we recognize that working in these factories is most often a step up from laboring in subsistence agriculture - and more importantly, sweatshops are often an element of a transitory stage in economic development that turns a country into a more developed economy with better rights and lives for all in the long run.

---

2. I read the definition in the sidebar. Isn’t this just a super broad ambiguous philosophy that anybody could get behind?

We’d like to think anyone could get behind it, certainly. But no, it isn’t as ambiguous or broad as you may be interpreting it; however, within the tent of liberalism, it does represent a broad spectrum of beliefs. The academic answer to this question is that historically and philosophically speaking, neoliberalism occupies the space between classical liberalism, libertarianism, and social liberalism but is not necessarily any of them. On a much broader economic and philosophical scale, that means that to the “right” of us, there are anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, many varieties of modern-day conservatives (though some could certainly fall under our umbrella). To the “left” of us, there’s anything from social democrats to Marxists, to communists. It’s true that we aren’t purists. But we see this as a strength to our ideology rather than a weakness.

Moreover, neoliberalism is not an ideology that one can define as neatly as social democracy or libertarianism. Many on the left use it as sort of a buzzword for laissez-faire corporatism, while some on the right characterize it as being too socially liberal. Even when it was founded, it was marked by disagreement over some key issues such as monopolies and trade unions. These issues were never fully resolved and the label was abandoned by its creators. However, the institutions put forth to spread neoliberalism were not.

Outside the tent of liberalism, neoliberalism can be defined relatively precisely as the belief in capitalism, globalization, and some government intervention to promote the efficiency of the market system and to redistribute wealth. Although this too is vague, the neoliberal movement represents more of a thought collective which cannot be simplified easily into a specific set of principles. Instead, a set of policy prescriptions is more effective in defining neoliberal thought.

---

3. This isn’t neoliberalism. Aren’t you all just a bunch of [libertarians/New Deal Democrats/social democrats/corporatist shills]? In order:

No - we do not believe in the delusion that the poor are poor simply because they don’t work hard enough. Less seriously, we worship a central banker on this community, how libertarian can we be?

No - we know that price controls, protectionism, and verging on central planning are not good responses to almost any economic situation, let alone a recession.

No - though this question is more fair. Neoliberalism and social democracy were often interwoven, particularly at the end of the 20th century. However, while we often share similar goals, social democrats tend to be significantly more skeptical of the merit of the free market on principle than neoliberals tend to be. In the same way that classical liberals might be seen as one step to the right of us, social democrats might be seen as one step to the left.

Yes.

---

4. In the sidebar and as a community, you all talk a lot about “evidence-based policy.” Does that mean you think that you all are above ideology entirely, and have no values or beliefs?

Not at all. Some of the hardest policy questions are the ones that hinge not on practical considerations, but on what we choose to value. And while some of our values differ across the community, some examples of relatively consistent values would include: • Freedom of expression • Freedom of movement for workers and capital • Private property rights • Working towards overall welfare as a global society • Preeminent concern for those among us who suffer most, who are marginalized, who are disadvantaged • Technological progress as something to embrace more often than something to fear

Evidence-based policy is more of a meme. Most politicians believe in basing their policies on what they perceive as “evidence,” but few have policies that stand up to actual evidence.

---

5. Is this just another anti-Trump sub?

No. While some of our more popular posts have been anti-Trump, spending five minutes browsing our posts and discussion thread will quickly tell you that Trump isn’t even close to a majority of what we discuss. That said, almost all of us do take issue with him, because he has helped to popularize certain tropes of nationalist and populist thinking that are often not just dangerous - they’re based on outright lies.

---

6. How did [insert post here] get so many upvotes? Like, even more upvotes than you have subscribers. Seems sketchy.

We make use of paid click-farms to upvote our posts, funded by our generous donors. These donors include George Soros, the Koch Brothers, David Brock, Goldman Sachs, and the Clinton Foundation. In all seriousness, we do not deploy any click farms to upvote our posts.

---

7. What about income inequality? Do you all just not care at all?

We certainly pay attention to income inequality. To what degree we think it has value as an economic indicator just depends on who you talk to here. But let’s talk about what actually causes it. The literature, this being a good example, tells us that income inequality is largely caused not even so much by globalization, but simply by the progression of technology.

How does this work? Well, one of the predominant theories is that the progress of technology is increasing the value of high-skilled labor in developed countries and decreasing the value of low-skilled labor. The extent to which low-skill labor (note that this isn’t a derogatory term, it simply refers to jobs that require less education) contributes to the creation of goods and services in developed countries is simply objectively not increasing as fast as that of high-skill labor. This results in a divergence, including potentially in wages and job availability.

Neoliberals do not blame workers with less education for this plight. We want to help them. But we ultimately do not believe that using protectionism and subsidies to prop up a specific industry or type of job for a few more years than it would survive otherwise is generally worth it. Rather, we want to help these individuals (a) in the short term by offering them compensation of some form that recognizes the fact that they are not at fault for the fact that their job does not exist anymore and (b) in the long term by making it as easy as reasonably possible for that uneducated worker to gain the education and skills necessary to become what economists would call “high-skill labor.”

Is this the only cause of rising income inequality? Absolutely not. There are a number of different variables. Another one, for example, is institutions. When historically, some groups in a country have not held the same rights and privileges as others, it exacerbates the economic gap between those groups. And when such discrimination continues to the present day, the problem is even worse. This is why it is so incredibly important that we as neoliberals support inclusive, open institutions.

---

8. Isn’t neoliberalism like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?

Sort of, but not exactly. You will find differing opinions on individuals like Reagan and Thatcher in this community, but what most of this community would agree on is that neoliberalism, like any political movement, has evolved over time. In the same way that there are sharp differences between first-wave feminism and third-wave feminism, modern neoliberal politicians like Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau have sharp differences from figures like Reagan and Thatcher. Most politicians tend to support some neoliberal policies, but there has been almost no politician that has explicitly followed the neoliberal agenda. For instance, Macron supports some degree of protectionism while Reagan perpetuated the drug war; both of these are anti-neoliberal pursuits. So, rather than holding modern politicians to purity tests, we, as a community, tend to support whoever best represents our beliefs in the status quo.

It’s also important to note that Ronald Reagan, for example, did not “invent” neoliberalism, nor did he adhere to its philosophy universally. The same could be said for Margaret Thatcher. Politicians often fall into the trap of taking the ideas that they like from economists and philosophers, while perhaps not embracing the aspects of those ideas that conflict with the views they already hold.

---

9. What are examples of leaders and parties that neoliberals support?

There is no universal answer for this question, because we as a community are not a monolith. We may each prioritize different things. While one neoliberal may appreciate the stability and consistent defense of the current world order by Angela Merkel, another may prefer some of the ideological details and secularism of Martin Schulz.