Topic: Neo-liberalism and the crisis of Capitalism (Read 364 times)

Well it is not like we have any other choice. Many research needs to have the modt accurate portrayal as possible and even though these intersections would most likely become limitations to fully understanding a population it is still better to just portray it as general groups


Agreed capitalism is a driving force of economic growth so if it is one of the things that can help a country grow out of poverty then I don’t think it should be looked at as a bad thing

What people who dislike "capitalism", which is simply just liberal laws, is that this is what we have as best solution right now. No other system has worked as well as this one did, look at USA and how miserable and yet improved the lives are at that country. If you do want a better life, then do come up with a better solution.

These days we do not have to look at things as only right or wrong, as only right or left, or liberal vs socialist, or authoritarian vs libertarian etc etc. We can have different views on every single subject, I could support socialist ideas on topic 1, and liberal ideas on topic 2, why would I have to fit myself into a box about every subject? I can just think of it case by case easily.

Your explanation seems good, but the reality will never happen. No company wants to pay its employees with bitcoin, even if there is, the amount is small.

Apart from that, bitcoin is like other forex instruments, most people see bitcoin in USD. Bitcoin is seen because there is USD value in it, if that thinking can be reversed and consider bitcoin to be more valuable than USD then it will be a new era.

by not measuring in USD (the point of my scenario)
if you mean the market would be 3333 MWHU (equating to($15*3333) $50k)

then the nigerian cost of 3333MWHU * N373 = N1.24m
and the game can still be played

All nice and peachy with Bitcoin at 72.000, Not so nice when it drops to 50.000.
Who thinks in minimal wages deserves to live of one.   

imagine this as a way we could counter the wallstreet manoeuvres of forex(much like the activism of gamestop did on wallstreet)

imagine we stopped measuring bitcoin vs USD which then assumes other fiat currencies:BTC via forex... to instead measure bitcoin vs "minimum wage hour units MWHU"
whereby as an example bitcoin was lets say 4660 MWHU

whereby for instance if USD min wage was $15. an american wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay $~70k
whereby for instance if UK min wage was ~£11.44 a brit wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay ~£53k
whereby for instance if nigeria min wage was ~N373 a nigerian wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay ~N1.73m

people would soon work out. they could sell bitcoin for USD.. convert USD to naira buy bitcoin using Naira, repeat and then see how the balance between Naira and USD changes

1btc = $70k = 88,000,000N = 50btc
50btc = $3.8m = 44000000000N = 2500btc

it wouldnt take much for wallstreet to then react to then change the 1:50 peg of $ to N(allow the circuit breaks to not trigger to allow the prices to move more inline)

I completely agree. Limiting the view of humans only as a means of production or labor is not a comprehensive view of society. People have their own value in the economy that is more than just being owners or employees. For example, someone may have a small business while working as an employee or entrepreneur. This means that economic classes do not always have clear boundaries and allow for a variety of roles and experiences between them.

It is also worth noting that capitalism manifests itself in various forms, including socialism. This illustrates that no economic system is completely negative or positive, but what matters is how well the system is developed and controlled. Your observations about the ambiguity of capitalism and the permissibility of adopting socialist elements have significant implications and should be seen as an example to highlight how we must consider context and implementation when studying economic systems.

As an African you should be aware that Africa is a large continent, And not a country.
Zambia: https://hir.harvard.edu/chinese-investment-in-africa-a-reexamination-of-the-zambian-debt-crisis/  a Harvard view.
Further investment into African countries: https://thediplomat.com/2021/11/the-quiet-china-africa-revolution-chinese-investment/
And the most interesting article: https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/chinese-economic-engagement-in-africa/

Don't forget that elections bring forward mostly politicians with little interest into their people.
I bet that some of the past White Governments have been more beneficial to some countries than the black version.
Basically don't trust anyone who promise you equality, 

Viewing people as members of simple binary divisions is not a very good portrayal, in my opinion. People aren't just owners of production or a part of labour force. Someone can be self-employed, being a means of their own production but also not employing anyone else, for example. Or sometimes people are just self-employed on paper, while really working for companies basically as employees. One can also both have a small business and have a job as an employee to earn money and invest in that business. So even if we split people into many classes, it doesn't cover those in the middle, on intersections, etc.
Capitalism, in its pure form, is a cruel system. But capitalism has many faces, and it can admit a significant part of socialism into it in practice, if we look at how different countries are doing it. So it's not all good or bad because it can be very different.

Liberalism was alright up until it started making money with money and not production. Back in the day "machinary taking over jobs" was a problem, but that just meant that production could increase, while you could buy more machines and hire more people and solve all problems.

Nowadays, nobody wants to actually work, they even send production business to overseas if they can to cheap countries, everyone wants to just make money with money. Apple is at California, how many phones do you think was made there? They are just RnD people with a lot of office people, nothing more than that at all. You could fire everyone but top 100 and you could still do fine with that company, a trillion dollar company, it is just shame that they all try to make money with money.

Because the only thing they hate more than the Western world and the former colonial powers is their own neighbors, that's why! 
If Africa would be that united and bent on achieving something leaving aside race, language, nationality, ethic conflicts you wound;t have seen massacres that rivaled the atrocities from ww2 and ww1 between themselves!


Oh, how dare you tell people that other nations that were at one point poorer than them, went through wars, and have been also colonies made to improve their own lives without ever blaming the past and thinking just for the future! Unheard of! 2999 will be here, Bitcoin will be for real dead, and half of Africa will still blame colonialism for everything!
No, actually let me raise the bets, we will see a time when the age of colonialism will be closer to the last living dinosaurs than the current time and we will see the same blaming game.


This piece of "work" is part of your "doctorate"?
Common, be real, there are more constructive, better-phrased posts on 4chan than this one here!

Yes, because the currency is not backed by gold reserves, the value of the currency is dominated by the power of western countries. That is a very detrimental thing. Apart from that, debt is also a problem. When poor countries' exchange rates weaken, their foreign debt will get higher over time.

One of the best solutions is to use fiat currency for local transactions only and use bitcoin and gold which have global prices for cross-border trade. Then the local currency may not be affected by forex. What is your opinion? Do you have a solution for this condition?

Africa is challenged by so many problems with corrupt leadership at the pinnacle. Blaming colonialism is a waste of effort because other nations have suffered the same predicament like Africa but are now developed. India, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and many more were also colonized but they have overtaken Africa in terms of technological advancement and economic development. Most of these nations also suffer from corruption but the height of this menace in Africa is beyond comprehension. And until sincere leaders who have the good of citizens at heart lead African nations, the continent will continually remain a underdeveloped.

I will advise that you consider arranging your writings in a manner that will aid easy reading and comprehension. Your points seem to be scattered which makes your post difficult to understand. This forum promotes freedom of speech therefore any member is free to express how the feel about your post. So don't be offended when they express their views. You could also see other responses from members that threw light on your topic.

Even though colonialism has been long abolished, we can not still deny the many effects that we still see until now.

In countries that have been colonized, we see it every day with their culture and language. Some of the things in their country can only be explained if the context of colonialism gets brought up. Most importantly we see huge impact of colonial mentality where people of one country think anything foreign is better/best.


Capitalism has its disadvantages but if you are part of the rich class, it benefits you the most. As much as I am aware of these disadvantages, I also find myself succumbing into capitalism myself from time to time.

I thought this forum is an educative one or a complete semblance of a higher educational institution where scholars and reseachers of different disciplines would visit to acquire knowledge, and I do pray that it should be so that the forum would be taken seriously.
But I'm very much surprised that someone of the status of legend in the forum would consider this piece of work that is of both master and doctorate standard a work of idiot.
If this is the way senior academicians would be rubbished by virtue of illiteracy, hatred for sound academic works, malice and mere juvenile deliquency in this forum, then there would be palpable fear for those of us in the academia to participate effectively.

basically it boils down to the western controls of FOREX

even if you looked at a african country and provided a cost of living index of rent, groceries and education
and called it X units (no mention of currency)

even if you looked at a US/EU state/country and provided a cost of living index of rent, groceries and education
and called it Y units (no mention of currency)

the us/EU would try to manipulate it so that it ended up as 10X=1Y
all so they can get labour and services at 10% of us/eu domestic cost (1Y=10X)
(10x is not a stat. its a random-demo number for this topic)

and they will never change that
they will never agree on x=y equality

if forex ever reached a x=y statue quo, western countries wouldnt see benefit in invading africa

It's hard to answer your question. Certainly, however, it isn't just the approach or method by which countries build their economies that's the only thing that matters. The neo-liberal approach, for example, isn't a silver bullet. It may apply and be effective under certain circumstances but may not be so under different circumstances.

I think there is no single formula that addresses and solves economic problems all over the world. You simply cannot assume that since one approach works in one country, it must also work in another. For example, a government that stops implementing price controls may be effective in one case but ineffective in another.

The African continent cannot escape the contemporary crisis of global capitalism because poverty is the main problem here. The problem of poverty in Africa is complex and multifaceted and is influenced by a combination of historical political economic and social factors. While it is not correct to blame either capitalism or government alone for Africa's poverty it is important to consider the impact of both. With capitalism leaders have many roles to play here. Leaders are working for their own interests and have no role in economic development and poverty reduction.

OP you've written this thesis as a historian which I don't know if you are, however for the African continent, neocolonialism is one major behind the scene circumstances that is affecting the African continent, the colonial masters still find a way to control the industrial capitalism of some of the African states, by either influence the activities of most government in power, thereby undermining their sovereignty and putting their productive capacity in disarray.
Most of the things we are talking about today especially for the African continent did not just start today, it has been happening for years, kwame Nkrumah a foremost leader in Ghana some years back wrote about neocolonialism the last stage imperialism, where he wrote about some of the misgivens in the African continent that is been influenced by colonial masters.  

Some persons will go on to argue that it was not only Africa that was colonised, other continent too where colonized and they are  doing just fine with their economy, so why is Africa's own different, however some persons need to be reminded that not all African countries are doing bad, the likes of Egypt, south Africa, Morocco and Tunisia are doing very well, Moreover I believe some of the African leaders that have allowed this neocolonialism to continue fester in their affairs is as a result of what they benefit as against the interest of their citizens.

So... with all that garbage you typed, or likely churned out of ChatGPT in the style of an idiot, you came up with The Great Depression - which took place almost one hundred years ago, as the centerpiece of your argument that capitalism is bad? How dumb. In all the decades since, not a single better solution or alternative has come along, because for all it's faults capitalism is the best economic model out there. You really want to get to the point where you are running well regulated capitalism, because corporations will have a tendency to direct some of their profits into loosening rules for the benefit of the company and the detriment of the public, but besides that it is the best model out there.

Banged on the point. This is the perfect explanation of why underdeveloped nations remains underdeveloped and poor it's not because of capitalism as we need to think who allowed capitalism? Who is being benefited by it? It's all due to incompetent leaders as they should be held responsible and people should vote for development and you will notice more of ethnic or religion based violence in these nations which is orchestrated by leaders to retain power.

neo-liberalism… it promised a lot, right? Growth, opportunity, that rising tide that lifts all boats. But that tide lifted some yachts and left the rest of us treading water. Everything's a commodity now, even things that shouldn't be. We've got this insane wealth gap, people struggling just to survive, whole communities left behind. That's the reality neo-liberalism can't hide

They talk about fancy economic policies, tweaking things at the margins. And did it fix the fundamental problems in Africa, or anywhere outside the wealthy West? No, because it was never going to. The system's designed to benefit the ones already winning

Think about it: these "underdeveloped" countries, they're not starting from zero. They've got a history of exploitation, resources drained, power stripped away. So, yeah, you can throw some neo-liberal policies at them, but it's like trying to run a marathon with a ball and chain on your ankle. It's not about bad policie; it's about the entire damn system being stacked against them. This isn't just economics; this is about power, and about who gets to write the rules of the game

Colonialism no longer exists, colonialism has been abolished since 1945. Capitalism is a good economic concept but greedy and often miserable. The economic system of communism is utopian, no country has ever arrived at the ideal concept of communism.

If developed countries do not control natural resources such as oil, coal, etc. then that is good, although it cannot be a guarantee that the country will develop after being abandoned by developed countries.

No, I don't blame capitalism, and my dream is to become a capitalist because they often become rich people

This is not capitalism. This is colonialism you are talking about. Colonialism and capitalism were closely connected in the last few centuries, but  I don't believe that colonialism and capitalism are the same thing. You seem like one of the guys, who blame capitalism for everything.
Why don't the African countries build a bunch of communist egalitarian societies with a government owned command driven economy?
Completely removing capitalism out of the equation will solve the problem. Right? What could possibly go wrong?
Do you really believe that African countries will become developed if the western countries suddenly disappear?

I think it’s both. Capitalism is feeding the rich and letting the poor eat off of their scraps and incompetent leaders can’t do anything to support the poor. I believe that capitalism is a way to improve economic conditions of a country but it won’t work if not everyone can participate so a country needs a certain level of capitalism and at the same a government that can make sure that every citizen in the country can keep up with the level of capitalism the country has.

The leaders of a country should instead focus on improving their economies by participating in global trades particularly exporting products instead of constantly importing. This way they can take advantage of capitalism and finally get out of the third world economy.

Agree with you. Their suffering occurs because international capitalism is carried out by developed countries and poor countries become fields that are always exploited by developed countries.

So what keeps poor countries poor is developed countries and they don't want poor countries to get better because it doesn't benefit them.

it is because of capitalism.. its your leaders that chose to favour international capitalism. (they get rich from the international community taking over domestic property, services, land) rather than domestic capitalism where they get rich from their own citizens growth

capitalism was the broken promise that if those at the bottom of the pyramid get better it then enriches those above..
its broken because instead of improving those at the bottom they just syphoned value from those at the bottom

and instead of it being internal(domestically) the leaders allowed international capitalism where majority of the trickle up economics benefitted other countries at the top of the international pyramic, who then gave a small piece to the leaders as a thanks for the deal.. thus didnt allow domestic growth/success as the money didnt stay inside the country or benefit those in the domestic pyramid


    

If you look at those undeveloped continent like Africa and most part of Asia, the suffering and poverty that existed within is not mainly cause by capitalism, socialism or any other form of government being practice by the state, The major cause of suffering in those part of the world is mostly cause by the high level of incompetence by our leaders.


I am a proud African, so I am saying this not as an outsider, I know what's going on within, most natural disasters most countries around the world are complaining about mostly don't happen here, our own disaster is not natural, it's man made, it's only few of our leaders that have the intention of even doing anything tangible for it citizens, they mostly care about their families and how to enrich their selfs through embezzlement of public funds.

so I don't think it's because of capitalism or any other systems that are making the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, it's because of the bad leadership in the state.

The emergence of industrial capitalism which commenced in Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century heralded two social phenomena such as; pervasive commodification ( all productions geared for sale), and monetization (the centrality and  the use of money for transactions). Sequel to this development, the entire human society became polarized into two social classes; the owners of production and labour. The latter became decomposed into different social classes such as; the middle class, working class, lower class, under class and lastly at best, though more often than not is never recond, the peasantry.
Thus, production is organized within these social complexities which is characterized with antagonisms arising from inequality, poverty, unemployment, inflation and hunger. These are the causes of the miseries in the human society in recent times.
The Great Depression in Europe in 1929 is as the results of these macroeconomic indices as stated above. Classical liberalism was not able to address the crisis, so there was a shift for the adoption of the neo- liberal paradigms such as; fiscal policy and monetary policy. These were operationalized to help manipulate aggregate demands as to minimize unemployment and inflation in Europe. It was achieved through Budgetary framework which shows the ratio of recurrent expenditures and capital expenditures and the directives of expenditures are specified accordingly.
Ever since the European countries, the United States of America and other advance countries are helped by this neoliberal permutations.
On the basis of these ideological persuasions, what really is happening to the African continent and other underdeveloped continents. Why are they not been able to liberate their continents from the contemporary crisis of global capitalism.
I would want the users of this forum to comment and contribute to this great debate. Thanks.