11–20 of 211 posts
Karl Marx would argue that his ideas might have worked if someone else implemented them.
Meanwhile capitalism in whatever form it's tried has proven itself to be an incredible engine of poverty reduction and human/social progress. There's always been tension between capitalism and democracy and we may be at a point where some of the cracks are showing.
[deleted]
Karl Marx would argue that his ideas might have worked if someone else implemented them.
The only thing I'd disagree with is the statement 'we're nowhere near there' with regard to oligarchy and societal collapse. I think we're quite close. We have an entire generation where a tiny proportion have great prospects and the rest have steadily diminishing prospects and increasing stress, and we have educated people who grew up in the west going to join an expressly suicidal terrorist organization. We have a…
>I think we're quite close. USA: 5% unemployment, GDP per capita of $55,000, 78.74 years life expectancy, Human Development Index: 8, etc. EU: 9% unemployment, GDP per capita $38,000, 78.82 years life expectancy, Human Development Index: 6 average, etc. Yeah, we're not "close." Meanwhile countries like the BRIC nations, especially authoritarian autocracies like China or Russia, with terrible inequality and 100x the p…
This is a meaningless statistic given negative wealth is possible (indeed common). By this simple measure a recent MBA graduate of Harvard with 200k debt and no assets is poorer than a Mumbai slum dweller with 2 rupees in his pocket.
I would argue that's not a fair reflection of the actual comparative wealth of the two individuals.
A potentially better measure of wealth would be say energy consumption which is highly correlated with living standards.
Of course the other point is that whilst inequality may be increasing, if measured in absolute cash terms, is that a bad thing if the living standards of the poor are being universally raised? A billion people in India and China have entered the middle class in the last 20 years.
It's ironic that the perceived decrease in wealth of the middle class in the US is exactly because on a global scale inequality, at least amongst the middle 80% is decreasing: an increasing percentage of wealth created is being distributed east-wards rather than remaining concentrated in the historically dominant economic powers of North America and Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think we're quite close. USA: 5% unemployment, GDP per capita of $55,000, 78.74 years life expectancy, Human Development Index: 8, etc. EU: 9% unemployment, GDP per capita $38,000, 78.82 years life expectancy, Human Development Index: 6 average, etc. Yeah, we're not "close." Meanwhile countries like the BRIC nations, especially authoritarian autocracies like China or Russia, with terrible inequality and 100x the p…
This wealth is based on social cohesion, which can fall apart in a generation or two. Genghis conquered half of Asia and built an empire of great wealth and high culture, but lack of cohesion tore it apart not long after.
Are we really comparing this to a country that's nearly 240 years old and is a global superpower that has weathered everything from civil war, a major depression, defeating communism, a moon landing, inventing the internet and all the technologies you're using right now, the largest economy by GDP, the most powerful military in history, etc?
This is like saying the The Who or The Stones should have broken up by 1970 because the Dave Clark Five did. I think youre purposely selling short the USA and citing election hysteria that happens every four years is far from convincing. If anything this kind of discourse is healthy and good in a democracy.
PG's simplified essay seems like attack on a strawman; he's mainly arguing that inequality is good, but then mostly everybody agrees with that. The issue people see (and PG conveniently ignores) is increasing inequality - not locally increasing (i.e. an enterpreneur becoming rich because of a successful business idea), but globally increasing inequality, which happens because of rent-seeking, tax avoidance, buying po…
Even if you make it impossible to 'pass down' these structures as property, you will have de-facto inheritance through nepotism and clan structures.
PG's simplified essay seems like attack on a strawman; he's mainly arguing that inequality is good, but then mostly everybody agrees with that. The issue people see (and PG conveniently ignores) is increasing inequality - not locally increasing (i.e. an enterpreneur becoming rich because of a successful business idea), but globally increasing inequality, which happens because of rent-seeking, tax avoidance, buying po…
At a global level, inequality has not been increasing. Globalization has been a huge win for developing nations in this regard (and the people who have paid the price are low-wage workers in developed nations like the US).
This is not to say that we have to conclude that globalization has been a good thing overall for developing nations - there are lots of problems it has caused for them at the same time. But it's tough to criticize it on the basis of increasing inequality globally, because it's done the exact opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Income doesn't help you much when most, if not all, of your disposable income is spent on rent.
[deleted]
