We all know what reduces poverty. Only one thing has ever successfully done so anywhere in the history of the world. It's called redistribution.
Yep, but people will do anything they can to avoid admitting that fact. Including arguing that the failures of neoliberalism are in fact the failures of an insufficient level of neoliberalism. Intellectually, it's the equivalent of refusing to recognise that the USSR's Communism was failing in the 1980s.
The word "neoliberal" has, in the past 40 years, been applied to everyone from Milton Friedman to Kamala Harris. Its meaning has effectively been lost to time.
That's only partially true. Word's have meaning because people have a shared understanding of what they mean. The fact that it is thrown out at every possibility may mean that it has a rather imprecise meaning, but that applies to basically every political concept. The fundamental principle of the ideology - namely the perspective that the rules of free market competition should be introduced as widely as possible, still holds true and is still the basic understanding that people have of it. And more importantly, any honest discussion about politics has to accept that this is a guiding ideology that many people follow.
In that respect, it's no different to any other ideological label - but I don't go around arguing that the words "socialism" or "fascism" don't mean anything just because some people are inclined to use them as a catch all to refer to things that they don't like.
