[beezlebroxxxxxx]

You say that, but if you go to conferences or "think-tank" events (barf, I know) filled with politicians, economists, or policy experts, you'll see a remarkably uniform set of economic and policy positions presented. Is 'neoliberal' the best name for this? Probably not, but it nonetheless is the name that has stuck for a really quite hegemonic way of understanding how governments, the state, economies, and monetary systems, should interact with one another. In many ways, it's an attempt to create an unholy mixture of old-school Keynesian economics with Chicago style libertarianism advanced by Friedman and his proteges during and in the wake of the Cold War.

The Price of Peace by Zachary D. Carter is a recent biography on John Maynard Keynes that is also a fascinating look at the history and transformations of economic thought after Keynes. I highly recommend it.

[amadeuspagel]

I would expect any coherent group - any group that goes to the same conferences and events - to develop some common views. "Neoliberalism" makes sense only with some other view to contrast it with in mind.

[spudz]

But the difference here is that neoliberalism is really about class interest, and so the policy is vacillating and inconsistent with respect to the jargon that hides class interests of monopoly capitalists, or better, the diverse interests of multinational corporations or the "member economies" that house them.