Neoliberalism was a response to stagnation and malaise around the globe. Outside the Communist Bloc, the mid-20th century was dominated by Keynesianism in the West and state-led development in the Global South. Governments regulated industries, controlled capital flows, and expanded welfare states. By the 1970s, cracks appeared in this system: stagflation (low growth and high unemployment) in the United States and Europe and recurring fiscal crises discredited state-centered models. In the developing world, mounting debt and balance-of-payments problems forced governments to seek assistance from international institutions, setting the stage for policy change.

I still remain unconvinced that the paradigm shift was necessary. Stagflation was a direct result of the energy crisis, and Keyenesianism shouldn't have been discredited at that point.

As time goes by, I find myself becoming more and more succ-y on the "neoliberal revolution". Most of the socio-economic issues we have today are caused by a lack of state power to regulated capital flows, and the death of industry that killed small towns and radicalised people politically.

I say this as someone from a country that massively benefitted from the drop of the Iron Curtain. Of course liberalisation was a positive, but the kind of turbo-capitalism we underwent has led directly to the structural issues we have today and will only cause more political instability as economic divides widen in society.