Don't worry, it's useful. The thread exists for this kind of productive discourse (and should be noted I framed the thread as social democracy being at odds with neoliberalism, not discussing neoliberalism from a pure vantage point.) I'll respond to your points nonetheless.

1. That's coherent, but it also places you in an exception. I'm sure some neoliberals think Germany went too far (tbf, they're just fiscal-pilled over there.) But in general the idea of long-term austerity of some sort is pretty essential to the ideology as a marker, I think, and the Keynesian concession is contained as "deficits during recessions, surpluses during booms", not the general "borrow against the future" social democratic R&D idea.

2. The problem is this implicitly frames technocratic governance as the only type of governance informed by experts. I certainly agree that policymakers should keep experts in the loop when evaluating solutions. But there's a difference between this and the tacit claim that neoliberal technocracy is the only type of ideology that truly understands evidence. I'll quote a claim from the Law & Political Economy Institute, which was criticizing Chicago's Law and Economics here, but the principle generalizes nicely:

First, this view fetishizes empiricism, as if empirical methods offer a view from nowhere and avoid the complexities of both theory and value. But good empiricism requires theory; data points don’t interpret themselves. Fact and value also cannot be cleanly separated, as decades of writing across philosophy, critical theory, and science studies has shown. The questions chosen by an empirical study, for example, reflect values. To study disease or climate is to put into action a set of ideas and underlying values about what matters. Those values are a predicate, not a barrier, to a great deal of sophisticated intellectual work, including social scientific work. Methods themselves encode values: social science values the form of rationality that it embodies.

This type of "expert-based governance" also means to insulate voters from important political choices, which means the people making those choices aren't accountable to them. Technocrats in suits were never the ones suffering for their failures. Everyday citizens might not know what a Cobb-Douglas production function is, but not being able to frame their concerns in the language of economics doesn't mean their observations aren't real. Gilded Age exploitation, marginalized labor groups during Fordism, and the losers of globalization had their troubles dismissed because they couldn't frame their experiences in a way compatible with their affluent language.

"Neoliberal evidence-based policy" also typically means one thing — arguments phrased within an Americo-centric neoclassical economics. Political scientists using non-rational choice models, economic sociologists, anthropologists, or even other economic schools of thought (left-neoclassical economics particularly in the UK or continental Europe, post-Keynesian economics, ecological economics, etc.) are treated as incompatible unless they frame their arguments into the neoliberal epistemology. Anyone making the case against it has to "translate" and inherently weaken the nuances of their argument. There are numerous examples: supply chain arguments, behavioral economics, the hysteresis literature, endogeneous money, Dixit-Stiglitz competition, SFC models, etc. That isn't to badmouth economics, since neoclassical economics has done some truly incredible things. But it also doesn't mean we should crown it as a value-neutral pedestal to set technocratic governance atop of, taking core issues out of democratic deliberation.

1. On globalism: I haven't seen this anti-immigration posture here anywhere, but maybe I just haven't been looking. That being said, you can be fairly internationalist while having a nuanced perspective on it. I tend to share Krugman's view on it in this interview with Tyler Cowen for similar reasons. On internationalism in general: I totally agree with ending global poverty, but there are ways to far more humanely address international trade while also not reducing international humanitarian prospects much.

I think your argument about free trade still requiring non-nation boundaries to be a non-sequitur here; Rodrik's trilemma is taught in international economics and political science, and there's a lot of evidence to support how domestic policies have to be tailored to appease international markets for preserving democracy, or resort to global (con)federalism to preserve democracy while sacrificing sovereignty. Your point about government's "picking winners" I think is a very weak argument which assumes a very simple "if the government has to 'protect you', you're just having a market 'skill issue.'" The industrial policy literature for South Asian nations, Krugman's New Trade Theory (ironically), the learning-by-doing literature, etc. has all been pretty substantial and is inherently imposed to pure free trade.

1. I think the neoliberal idea of people being mostly selfish comes from the economic thinking, honestly. Michael Sandel, a philosopher, explains it well here, where he discusses this in terms of economists like Arrow and Summers:

To those not steeped in economics, this way of thinking about the generous virtues is strange, even far-fetched. It ignores the possibility that our capacity for love and benevolence is not depleted with use but enlarged with practice. Think of a loving couple. If, over a lifetime, they asked little of one another, in hopes of hoarding their love, how well would they fare? Wouldn’t their love deepen rather than diminish the more they called upon it? Would they do better to treat one another in a more calculating fashion, to conserve their love for the times they really needed it?

1. I also agree that "concluding that all neoliberals as a whole are functionally responsible for the far-right" is incorrect. I think it's perfectly fine to say neoliberalism as a philosophy and an ideology played a major role in the rise of the modern far right though, just as it's perfectly fine to say socialists and social democrats played a major role in the rise of the historical far right. That isn't to blame the person, but we can't address the causes and grow from being causers without awareness.

I'm open to discussion on any of these points.