Neo-liberalism, when forced upon a developing country by a developed one, might as well be called colonialism. The same thing is accomplished, the economy is dominated by said developed country. Basically the relationship between most of Latin America and the U.S.
Sure, was just to precise that the IMF did the same with the rest of the world. We quite saw it in depth last year in one of my course at university, with a teacher who worked at lot in Africa, so, the concrete examples I've in head are from this continent. Quite ironically, it's now the turn to European people to slowly fall under the same neoliberal tyranny, Greece being the first victim for now. It it continues that way, Europeans will live in conditions similar to countries in the third world who are under the iron fist of IMF, WTO and World Bank. Except that here we're atttacked by our own organisations : UE and European Bank.
The IMF also did it to Poland following Solidarność's sort of revolution. If it wasn't for that, Poland would have likely stayed a socialist country, just independent from the soviet Union. South Africa might have become a socialist country too, if it wasn't for the IMF.
what's happening in the post-industrial countries is that because enough foreign markets are opened up now, large global corporations don't need any kind of strong middle class to keep demand high. So now, the goal isn't so much to further open markets, but to completely suppress anything coming out of the middle class. And when you have corporations that powerful, they can easily control our own governing institutions.
I think we need to clarify words here. Acquiring what is produced by someone else is not the definition of profit. If I make a purchase, i'm exchanging currency for something that someone else produced. The other party is said to gain by the exchange, but I did not produce the currency.
By produce I mean create by my own skill and craft.
Even if I trade an item with someone, a shovel for a bedside stand for example. I might not have produced the shovel, and the other party might not have produced the stand, but we both profit from the exchange.
according to Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value, one of the cornerstones of modern economics, a good or service's value is directly related to the labor used to create it. In this sense, when a product or service is sold by some company, any value beyond overhead is compensation to the laborer for his time. So, profit in this context, is the value not paid to the working hand who rightfully deserves it.
I can understand up to the point where the conclusion, the definition of profit, is drawn in context. I want to be sure i'm clear on that last part though. Profit is the gain made by the company in not giving the full value of a worker's labor back to them?
Basically yes. Profit is what isn't paid to laborers. Classical economics is perfectly aware of this, but never made a concern out of it, because in a pre-industrialized economy where the market was dominated by small artisans and craftsmen, ideal competition was easier to achieve, so there was an equilibrium between price and cost, keeping profits very minimal. However, we live in a post industrialized economy dominated by massive corporations of varying sizes, and that ideal competition is merely a pipe dream, and profits are massive. Our economy is the large scale shortchanging of the working class.
Doit-on vraiment s'adapter à l'ignorance politique crasse de certains "Américains"? S'ils ignorent que le libéralisme s'est toujours opposé au socialisme, et donc à la gauche, que le néolibéralisme fut l'idéologie appliquée par Tatcher, Pinochet et Reagan, et suivie par le reste des partis conservateurs dans le monde occidental depuis lors, c'est pa notre problème. Ils ne font que perdent toute crédibilité intellectuelle aux yeux du monde. Certes le libéralisme fut un temps une idéologie de gauche à ses débuts, mais c'était avant l'apparition du socialisme.
You know what neo-liberalism is right? It has nothing to do with the left wing. Neoliberalism is a term for open market, unrestricted free trade. It is the kind of no holds barred, ruthless and cut-throat capitalism that the imperialsit dogs (The GOP) are hoping for.
But I'm guessing you knew that.Please know that not all Americans are that clueless.
The lack of common sense restrictions on trade has already decimated the American labor force and suppressed long-term wage growth. I'd like to know which barriers GOP voters want to erode further and how they think they would lead to progress/prosperity for anyone but the super-rich.
It's no secret that the GOP unilaterally opposes regulation (and has traditionally fought it or weakened it at every turn, even when it made sense, e.g. after the 2008 crisis) and advocates privatization, whether it makes sense or not. They scream about regulation and high taxes when American CEOs are the richest in the world and made record profits in 2011.
If you want to read about the effects of free trade on domestic workers, it's a well-discussed subject. (here's a site I found in a couple seconds, but you're welcome to seek out more [link]). It's really basic economics and economists predicted the outcome before it happened.
Other than that, I don't really plan on writing a college paper here about it. You can find arguments on both sides about it online pretty easily and make up your own mind, my friend. Just check the sources.