Over the 1990s and 2000s the term “neoliberalism” has gained rapid popular and academic acceptance. Indeed, neoliberalism is by now a very well established object of inquiry as an economic theory, public policy paradigm and more broadly speaking as an ideology. Yet for all the studies and references to neoliberalism, like its mainstream twin globalization, it remains a rather nebulous term. David Harvey a prominent Marxist geographer has popularly (2005: Ch. 1) described the origins of neoliberalism as originating in a shadowy meeting-hall of conservative malcontents waiting in the wings to stem the tide of rising state interventionism after the WWII. Bob Jessop (2002) employs the term neoliberalism in at least four senses. Now I do not mean to suggest that Harvey is pushing a simplistic conspiratorial view of neoliberalism nor do I mean to suggest that Jessop is being inconsistent or intellectually incoherent. What I do mean to suggest, however, is that neoliberalism is nebulous precisely because capitalism—most notably in the wake of the collapse of its mirrored doppelganger: socialism—has become increasingly ubiquitous as a mode of production. And to the extent that capitalism and its contemporary ideological and philosophical precipitates have become hegemonic, neoliberalism has become ubiquitous as an ideology, an economic theory and as a strategy of accumulation. That is to say, that “neoliberalism” as critical instance of its mirror twin “globalization” has risen in prominence both in a popular and in an academic sense precisely because they touch on significant aspects of global capitalist social reality. Neoliberalism is thus understood as a complex political economic phenomena which has broad and variegated spatial and temporal scales. In short, the term neoliberalism attempts to capture, in a phrase, the essence of our times and like all words, at some level, they fail us miserably; but at other levels they are the key to our liberation.