Neoliberalism is many things, but one of its most dynamic innovations is rationalizing and legitimizing unspeakable greed as mere "economics"
I've made the point before (and others have too) but consider how both min wages and welfare are often discussed and framed versus, say, tax cuts for the wealthy or sky-high executive compensation
The former are framed as obstacles or impediments to "the economy" which in turn is framed as a dispassionate and rational system; the latter as necessary to make it function "naturally"
It's particularly egregious in relation to welfare. In effect, we're told that the poorest people in society won't be productive (their worth framed in terms of their productivity, of course) unless their access to money is restricted.
For the wealthy, the opposite logic is applied: we're told a CEO making $50 million a year to run a telecom oligopoly can't be expected to be as productive or valuable if paid, say, $30 million a year. All of this is just "economics".
This is the genius of the neoliberal smokescreen: it masks what are effectively neo-Victorian attitudes towards wealth and poverty as if they're iron laws of nature rather than the products of values, institutions and, ultimately, asymmetries of power.
This is why "incentive" means a tax cut if you're already rich and the state clawing back your monthly $500 workfare payment if you're poor.
(I believe it was, of all people, the late C Hitchens who had a good turn of phrase similar to this but I can't remember)
