>>121126I don't browse r/neoliberal and I haven't read The Economist in a while but basically from what I can remember the neoliberal argument is:
>Muh NIMBYism and Zoning Regulations are the problem I mean I'm sure there's lots of cases where that can interfere with housing construction but it's all a deflection away from the larger problem; that is to say central governments that have literally abandoned all attempts to construct mass affordable public housing BECAUSE OF NEOLIBERAL IDEOLOGY, like how Thatcher just demolished council housing in Britain with her retarded Right-To-Buy scheme and no government after her bothered to replenish the stock. There's also ancillary issues of why the fuck should foreign investors even be allowed to buy housing stock in countries they do not have citizenship in, or why shouldn't governments be able to control immigration if need be.
Neoliberals are very slimy people what they don't tell you and leave out of their analysis is just as important as what they say tbh. I'm not interested in starting an argument with a bunch of retards who think Keynes is neoliberal. The one time I went onto that forum I saw a guy with an IMF flair claim that the welfare state was good; such blatant ignorance (the IMF is the root cause of a lot of welfare state retrenchment) cannot be reasoned with, only laughed at.