I believe in Neo-Viking Constructive Engagement as a strategy for peace and enhancing global wealth growth.  

What is old Viking approach, you ask?   Easy.   Just chop and hack everybody to bits and call it a day.  Or, chop and hack everybody and only sit to negotiate when the other side is willing to give you land in exchange for security.

See?  It is easy to understand how meeting and talking to EVERYBODY is a rather different approach.

See rhal, you are a genius.  You KNOW what Neo-Liberalism is.  I have no idea other than it is popular with people who oppose freemarket capitalism.

 How is freemarket capitalism fundamentally different in the late 20th century, 21st century from what it was earlier in the 20th century or even earlier than that?

 westslope wrote: 
...there’s nothing neoliberal about the world we live in today. It is neither new in the sense of “neo” nor liberal in the sense of fostering democratic values. Look at what has been happening in Europe over the last decade. Gigantic bank bailouts are funded through taxation. There is nothing really “neoliberal” about the use of such vast subsidies from the public to finance capitalists.

Even under the government of Margaret Thatcher in the UK from 1979 to 1990, the height of so-called neoliberalism in the UK, the British state grew rapidly, becoming bigger, more powerful, and more authoritarian than ever. We witnessed a state that was weaponized on behalf of the City of London to the benefit of a very small segment of the population. I don’t think we should concede the term “neoliberalism” to the brutish establishment using state power to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

https://braveneweurope.com/yanis-varoufakis-capitalism-democracy-and-europe

What is neoliberalism?  How is it different from simply 'liberalism' or classic liberalism or 'liberal democracy'?  

Is creating new economic property rights such as tradable quota fisheries or vouchers for public schools 'neoliberal'?  

It seems to me that the critics of freemarket capitalism are fond of using the term while the supporters of freemarket capitalism whether they are found in North America or among the Nordic social democracies never use the term.  These same critics never propose going back to the original 'liberalism'.

Is the prefix 'neo' simply an attempt to demonize freemarket capitalism?    Or is there more to it?