AHC/WI: Neoliberalism stillborn

How could one prevent neoliberalism becoming the major political force that it was from the late 70s onward and what would the consequences of neoliberalism remaining a relatively fringe idea in right-wing circles be?

A few ideas that come to mind include:
  • Preventing the Chilean coup, or at least having different post coup leadership that aren't willing to turn Chile into ground zero for neoliberal economic reforms
  • Preventing Regan and Thatcher, and other like-minded figures in British and American politics, from rising to the top
  • Keep neoliberals from positions of influence within the Bretton Woods Institutions and using them as tools for "encouraging" neoliberal market reforms
 
None of those PODs would stop neoliberalism, which really emerged after Keynesian ideas on the economy was challenged after Stagflation. Stagnation and unemployment were seen as opposites; an increase of one decreases the other. Stagflation went against it. If the Vietnam War ended early, like in 1969 or 1970, a reduction in military spending would reduce inflation; the result is a normal recession with low inflation, which can then be resolved in standard Keynesian ways. Or better yet, no Vietnam War at all.
 
I don't know much for Thatcher, but for Reagan, maybe have him become President instead of Carter? Carter's years was unfortunately a poisoned chalice and after getting the name dragged becasue of Watergate, the Rupublicans will take a beating and perhaps the Left can push on even further left (maybe with a Kennedy for President) and then have the 80s be ruled by mroe traditional left policies and possibly mroe Keynesian things.

As for Chile, maybe the coup fails for whatever reason or tensions are too high to go through with them.
 
The question then becomes how could the Yom Kippur War be prevented and thus not have the oil crisis of 1973 and stagflation.

When it comes to specific countries, perhaps have state influence/expansion in the economy be limited so as to blunt the neoliberal/conservative/small government reaction. In this case a less expansive or moderated Great Society program by LBJ or minimal nationalization by the various post-war UK governments.
 
The question then becomes how could the Yom Kippur War be prevented and thus not have the oil crisis of 1973 and stagflation.

Stagflation actually happened in 1970 before the 1973 oil embargo, so that’s not going to be sufficient. Stagflation would still happen, and it would still mystify Keynesian economists who view the entire event as anomalous.

No, you need to reduce government spending to keep stagflation from happening. The easiest way is to avoid the “Americanization” of Vietnam, or at least limit it. Then, inflation would not be anywhere near as high, and thus, no stagflation.
 
As noted, getting rid of particular political figures isn't going to do it; Carter was introducing supply-side proto-neolib measures too.

No Vietnam would be one way to get rid of stagflation. Another solution might be to continue strong economic growth throughout the Seventies - perhaps China or India industrializes more quickly and increases worldwide demand, or there is an earlier boom in computer technology.
 
Keep the Cold War going strong. It wouldn't prevent the rise of neoliberalism in Europe and the United States, but it would probably stop its global spread.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
For the US, have LBJ not escalating Vietnam War and just focusing on Great Society. Much better, have Chinese Civil War end up with North China and South China, thus butterflying away Vietnam War.

For the UK, as you don't give a specific POD, we can keep the Liberals as the main party of government. This alone would butterfly away nationalization of various manufacturing industries. Or, have they performing much better after 1929 than IOTL and the Falkland War going badly so that they can win the 1983 election. Either case, we would see a true third way solution.
 
perhaps China or India industrializes more quickly and increases worldwide demand,

China this early is pretty hard, but for India, there are a few ways to do this. One is to keep Nehruvian socialism from being enacted, or have a shock in the 1950s lead to its end. Another is to make the liberal reforms passed after the 1966 economic crisis stick, perhaps by keeping Indira Gandhi and thus her brand of left-wing populism out of power. Both PODs would lead to an India having its 1990s growth decades earlier, the former obviously faster than the latter.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
China this early is pretty hard
Not hard if we can have Chinese civil war end up with Communist North China and KMT South China, by having KMT introduce land reforms sufficiently early. And then have to the KMT adopted the policies that were adopted in Taiwan IOTL (which led to the rise of Taiwan as an Asian Tiger).
 
Top