That broader "so what" issue is that, all in all, neoliberalisms seems to be working - by Harvey's own admission it did break the vicious circle of stagflation, and it also seems to produce substantial economic growth that benefits not just the elites but large segment of the middle and professional classes, even if to a lesser extent. So the classical neoliberal argument of the rising tide that lifts all the boats except the ones that are not seaworthy anyway does not seem to be refuted. Getting the yachts preferential treatment, flooding the boats that would not sail anyway, and cutting a few corners in democratic procedures seem like a small price to pay for general progress and prosperity, no? I understand that similar arguments used to be raised in defense of central planning and socialism - so what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander, no?
So how can this argument be refuted? The usual strategy of immiseration anecdotes - sobbing stories of someone somewhere getting a short end of the stick and ain't making it - does not do the trick. It may appeal to the pity of those who are already converted, but for most rational people without left ideological priors it is a case for more charity to help those less fortunate rather than a case for abandoning a strategy that seems to be all in all working.
Any thoughts and suggestions how to argue this? I am looking for something other than predicting eventual economic catastrophe, which unless the catastrophe is already underway is as convincing as any other form of doom saying.
Wojtek