I disagree that neoliberal is a word "to hit others over the head with", any more than "socialist" or "christian" or "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It is a word that describes an ideology; most neoliberals I know would be quite proud of it. I think that most readers of HN lean toward the libertarian side, and are thus sensitive to the critical connotations of neoliberal, but if the shoe fits...
Additionally, just a person might have an ideology even though he or she doesn't announce it explicitly. I reserve the right to describe people in ways they would not describe themselves.
So, I think the downvoting of me this time is flawed.
By the definition of neoliberal, non-market structures are considered bad. But you don't know that, or you wouldn't have downvoted me, at least not the first time. Why you might have downvoted me is that you think a shift away from more socialist structures toward more market structures is a good thing, or (less likely) that we are not in a neoliberal era. In either case, to downvote an opinion because you think it is wrong seems silly to me. Why not write a rebuttal, if you're so smart?
I think I have come to take more pride in my vote volatility than in having lots of karma; when I watch it go up and down on a post I think -- wow, people actually care about what I said. And anyone who actually worries about their karma points on HN.... well, sorry about that.
... This is the first time, I have seen a LARGE company...
I don't want to romanticize times gone by, but I think at certain points in history there have been people who controlled large companies also knew that their sustainable existence depended on a healthy society; there might be short term costs to investing in such a society, but the long term benefits are enormous. In the neo-liberal era, this approach is no longer given any credence, but that is Bad Thing, indeed, and really just plain foolishness.