Indeed, the neo* prefix is a generalization too broad.


Let's keep it to economics. The dissonance I perceive is essentialy austrian vs keynesian money. Good example is usury - the more is wealth distribution skewed, the more society starts to resemble slavery, as the poor are left with no choice other than to borrow. Later on, it gets to the point that the wealthy spend less than the interest they're owed. Sugarscape mentioned earlier allows sugar lending, rent-seeking is the end game. Poor masses are caught in the hamster wheel.

Now, libertarians just shrug their shoulders "should not have borrowed if they can't utilize the capital" and that's true to an extent, but they completely dismiss the perspective of the poor - the game was rigged from the start (rich were rich from the beggining, and the poor just got poorer). Poor one getting lucky and escaping the trap, as well a wealthy one becoming poor because of bad investments is more of an exception, rather than rule. tl;dr: The term old money exists for a reason.

Leftism/marxism in the form of keynesian money and taxation of the rich is intended to level the playing field. Libertarians call bloody murder over this. I call it return to common ownership. The fact that governments are notoriously bad at it and can't counter the pressure of the bag holders in current fiat monetary system is just how it is now, but in some places (sweden, canada) it used to work fairly well until recently.
 
Finally, it should be noted that most governments actually don't indulge in wars. I tend to generalize, hence no tunnel vision on the US.