Hell the neo-liberalism marker is a misnomer in that the "liberal" part is solely about their blatantly non-liberal economic policies that they just simply lied about being liberal in order to sell it to the centrists of the time. Which of course time has shown it was not only not liberal but was the start of blatantly fascist economic policies that they were actually wanting to enact (i.e. all the money to military, the rest have to beg or better yet just fucking die for the profits of corporate America as they steamroll average peoples' rights to enable it, which then fueled the need for the government to step in repeatedly to salvage their attempts to ruin the economy).
That's not true, that's invented history on your part.
Liberalism was always the philosophy of individualism, and was very much the belief system of the capitalist classes, as opposed to the land-owning gentry on the one hand and the working-class on the other.
Neo-liberalism is correctly named, it's a resurgence and reassertion of the free-market, minimalist-state, capitalist outlook, which always has been a strand of liberalism. It's always been part of that tradition.
Neo-liberaiism is a movement that started with Friedman, Hayek, Mises, Buchanon, and the rest, who thought that by separating 'the market' from political control, and 'rolling back the state' they could preserve their particular (rather questionable) idea of 'freedom', after the horrors of the overreach of the state in the 1930s. But it was still clearly in the liberal tradition. Indeed in most countries the "Liberal Party" is the party that was always the most pro-capitalism, and which duly embraced neo-liberalism. The Liberal Democrats here have always had a strong strand of pro-free-market neo-libealism aka 'the Orange bookers'. Tories favoured the royals and the aristocracy and following tradition, Labour were (supposedly) socialist, and Liberals were in favour of the free market.
It's a nonsense to say the neo-libs "lied about being liberal in order to sell it to the centrist of the time", that bears no relationship to what happened, historically.
The neo-libs didn't 'sell it to the centrists' under some sort of false-pretences. The centrists happily embraced neo-liberalism, because 'centrists' represent those who do pretty well under capitalism and don't want radical change. When capitalism was going well and had the wealth to spare, those centrists might have embraced a bit of welfare-liberalism and benignantly offered something to those not doing so well under the existing system, but as soon as things get difficult they embraced neo-liberalism.
Not because they were 'tricked' by the cunning use of the name (which was only really coined retrospectively anyway) but because it suited their interests.
It's true that while neo-liberalism was originally supposed to be a way of preserving a certain notion of 'freedom' against the twin threats of fascism and communism, in reality both those things faded from the scene anyway, and the neo-libs instead turned on social-democracy and the welfare state. That may have been the intention all along, but in any case in doing so they seem to have just bought the very spectres they were supposedly trying to avert, back to life again. I just don't agree though that 'centrists' were 'sold' neo-liberalism, still less that the name had anything to do with it (the name only really became widely used long after the neo-liberals had taken power in the form of Thatcher and Reagan). The centrists, i.e. the likes of Clinton and Blair and the Lib Dems, quite happily embraced neo-liberalism, because it didn't clash with their personal self-interests.