Well, i the most inadequate use of the erm, well, there's one i didn't even cover, bcause it was so dome, but i which is that neo liberalism is the late twentieth century forces of capital reclaiming their power, am, which, you know, doesn't even make, i mean, it's

just, by

that brief history of neo liberalism book written by geography professor, it was just, you know, a disastrous use. But most of the time, and you see this in that book, but in almost all the books on neo liberalism, until fairly recently, that neo liberalism was a kind of ethos. It was like, every all that matters is profit. Let's get wealthy, you know. And everything in the world is seen through the cash nexis ote buying and selling. So fuco's analysis was often of geary becker, of which that's more fair to say than almost anybody t you would describe as neo liberal. But people who use the term following fouco just didn't know what the differences are between market liberals. And so becker's tendency to look at things through pretty narrow cost benefit lens, even though it's useful, would miss a lot of subtlety. Sometimes people have, mostly philosophers, have associated neo liberalism with utilitarianism, various uses of the term utilitarianism, by the way. So, you know, some people think that neo liberalism's all about the cost benefit of analysis. Is all about weighing up the costs and benefits of various policies, and that's all rey what matters in judging whether it makes makes sense. Am, so it's a way of being a utilitarian where utilitarianism is crudely understood, not in line with t a tradition as riches a cotton, say, men and sidgwicks hands. Sometimes people acquaint neo liberalism with libertarianism, where it's not like there's a very sharp distinction between them. But mostly, um, the issue is that neo liberalism, as is generally used, would not include mury rothbard. And, you know, so, like, you can't just identify neo liberalism as the market should do everything, you know, because the vast majority of people that that term has been used to describe have not been anarchists. Though, quin slavotian, at one point, after his really cool book, globalists, tried to put missus and rothbard and papa under the term nea liberalism. And i just pushed back against that, oh, with him, oman. He hasn't really a settled is it? Look, look, your definition of nealiberalism is that people are trying to build a certain kind of state capacity to create and sustain markets. So you can't call someone an n liberal if they're an anarcha capitalist, like by your own definition. To some people try to stretch it, even tha scholars, but, you know, it doesn't really work. But it usually denotes people who are, like, students of hi or students of freedmen, who are going around the world trying to build market institutions in societies with extensive states, to get them ona more stable footing, rightlike cutting spending, lowering taxes, privatizing, nationalized ndustries, having more free trade, all that good stuff. But neo liberals aren't anarchists. A, and at least the final confusion, which is that very few neo liberals think about neo liberalism as their ideal. So a lot of times they're like anti ideal theory in the way that hi sometimes is. Ah, but you know, buchanan, i think, fits under neal liberalism, but what he thinks is the very best is anarchy. Am, and a freedman, wasn't always clear because, yo know, i don't think he wanted to go as far as the sun, or at least to say so openly on

that point.