|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That technological shift helps both sides spread information to more people, more quickly. However, combined with a common narrative it can be extremely impactful. On one hand in a material sense, life will continue to get worse for most people, but the reason why will be very difficult most people to figure out as a whole. This is probably one reason why the far-right and politicians who utilize that message will continue to become more powerful. Far-right populism is a narrative that can exist alongside the media pretty much and give at least a illusion of an alternative but without any actual solution. It is why there are also so many turf wars and echo chambers on the internet at this point, everyone is scrambling to try to find an answer but there fundamentally can't be a consensus in part because the discussion surrounds such a powerful public narrative. Right now though it seems liberal economists are trying to figure what it is going on and are coming up with some answers (through a different route than Marx) but nevertheless also fail to have found a workable solution and it is quite possible they can't because they have rejected the tools that may make a solution possible. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:47 on Apr 27, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
Is there any indication that propaganda and media have become more or less efficient over time? I hope we will sooner or later at least be able to agree that there is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Is there any indication that propaganda and media have become more or less efficient over time? Well, if you look at exposure to media and the options to that exposure, obviously it has gone far up. In terms of actual effectiveness, any argument may be loose since it is hard to quantify that sort of exposure in terms of hard data. Obviously, authoritarian regimes have existed before that have had nearly total control over the media and have stamped out dissent, there is the issue of still relative liberal societies in which aren't under such control doesn't exist(yet). It may very well in those societies there is are more effective methods of dissemination of a central narrative than there was in the past. In comparison, ff you look at the Sisi regime (obviously an authoritarian regime), it has had frightening success over controlling the narrative in Egypt, and it could be argued that technology may have given in an edge in that sense. Personally, I think as the ability of regimes to censor and control the internet improves (including self-censorship by major corporations), the internet might actually be a tool of remarkable benefit to those type of regimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 11:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:On one hand in a material sense, life will continue to get worse for most people Should we accept uncritically that life will continue to get worse for most people? That life hasn't been getting worse for most people over the long term should be self evident but also shows up in income growth statistics, infant mortality rates, and other quality of life indicators. Piketty conclusively shows that inequality is rising and...so what? Wages are also rising and standards of living are improving so what is the point of focusing on inequality other than to engage in class warfare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should we accept uncritically that life will continue to get worse for most people? That life hasn't been getting worse for most people over the long term should be self evident but also shows up in income growth statistics, infant mortality rates, and other quality of life indicators. For a number of reasons but a big one is that money buys influence. High inequality creates an unfair political system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
For what it's worth at least Piketty is making Fox News freak the gently caress out. I caught some of their coverage of it lately and it was basically full on Marxist Panic. "Best-selling economics book by a French Socialist advocates 80% income tax!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should we accept uncritically that life will continue to get worse for most people? That life hasn't been getting worse for most people over the long term should be self evident but also shows up in income growth statistics, infant mortality rates, and other quality of life indicators. Do you not believe that you are as much of a person as a rich man, and deserve the same rights as that rich man? Do you believe that your voice should be secondary to his in a democracy? In very practical and political ways the "wholeness" of the rich as participants in democracies is far greater than that of the average person. Think about Maslow's hierarchy of needs: it is difficult for a person to become self I actualized and a meaningful political and social participant if she is constantly preoccupied with her physical sustenance and safety. Basically, a cashier at Wal Mart is not as represented in our nominal democracy as a right person for a host of reasons. That fact is basically antithetical to a true democracy, which I believe we all are entitled to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 13:36
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:For what it's worth at least Piketty is making Fox News freak the gently caress out. I caught some of their coverage of it lately and it was basically full on Marxist Panic. "Best-selling economics book by a French Socialist advocates 80% income tax!" Ailes has completely lost his mind and is increasingly paranoid his audience will begin reading well-researched economics tomes. Or anything at all. That's my favorite part of the right, my one and only true love about them. It's all fear, all the time, and it doesn't brake for anything.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should we accept uncritically that life will continue to get worse for most people? That life hasn't been getting worse for most people over the long term should be self evident but also shows up in income growth statistics, infant mortality rates, and other quality of life indicators. If anything it is very possible that globalization as a source of development may have started to reach its limit since it requires ready consumer market in the first world for third world manufactured products and services. This recently came up in the India thread where growth has slowly been dropping back to the "Hindu" standards of growth prior to liberalization, and it very well be that there isn't the demand available to induce growth. If inequality continues as Piketty predicts, then if anything much of the third world may have a crunch where they haven't yet fully developed but there will no longer the capital flows the vast majority of the population that once were assumed. Technology may indeed improve which may mitigate some of the effects but likely prices will continue to rise faster than wages. In addition, inequality still very much matters in a social sense even if technology improves and people live longer and healthier but there is still a psychological gap there. More over, political domination by a small wealth elite is going to have its own impact on the structure of society and will cause considerable internal strife. On one hand you might have a refrigerator now, but on the other hand there are mass riots in the streets over the price of basic food stuffs (this cuts for Venezuela as well). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should we accept uncritically that life will continue to get worse for most people? That life hasn't been getting worse for most people over the long term should be self evident but also shows up in income growth statistics, infant mortality rates, and other quality of life indicators. Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did. I'm sure he's talking about Chinese manufacturing laborers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did. The tide is rising and 99% of the people are about to drown, because the rich destroyed their boats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did. In another thread, an image was posted that showed a tiny increase in post tax income because continued stagnation of wages lead to decreased tax burden from the tax policy of the last few decades. So the obvious answer here is that there is no need to grow wages, we simply must just reduce taxes. Sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
This whole problem is further exacerbated by the desire in so many hearts to envision themselves as something other than "commoner". Do not worry about the plight of the average man, for you are something greater; destined for as much wealth and power as all the other chosen ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
i am harry posted:This whole problem is further exacerbated by the desire in so many hearts to envision themselves as something other than "commoner". Do not worry about the plight of the average man, for you are something greater; destined for as much wealth and power as all the other chosen ones. I think at this point it's more that most Americans today grew up with a particular vision of the "American Dream" -- house, garage with cars, kids in college, relatively debt-free, quality healthcare, so forth -- that's simply no longer achievable economically for most people. It's not that everyone wants to be an elite, it's that what everyone perceives as "normal" or "average" or "median" has become the sole province of the elite. People aren't raging because they can't afford caviar and jaguars, they're raging because they can't afford educations and health care. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
I am personally concerned about the inequality of Capital, more than the inequality of labor income (which is also a major problem). Capital provides a measure of security against various random disasters in life, like losing a job, injury or illness (for you or your family), or economic declines. It provides an ability to start businesses or get an education, or provide your family with one. The primary innovation of the 20th century is that we went from a situation where the top 10% of capital ownership held over 90% of all capital. It is still incredibly unequal, but today the top 10% hold 70% of all capital, and the next 40% (which Piketty dubs the Middle Class, for purely arbitrary reasons) clawed out 25% of all capital for itself. This 25% of capital for 40% of people is generally limited to Real Estate, but also includes retirement accounts, pensions, and other minor low interst savings. This capital provides, at the very least, a strong safety net for the 40%, which means they don't need to rely as much on public services and goods, and it means that in times of crisis we have a class that can sustain itself without massive and expensive interventions. It means they can get ahead easier, being able to pass wealth down to their kids, pay for college educations for themselves and family, etc. The obvious caveat here is that the bulk of the capital owned by the 40% is RE, which is not liquid (though it can be borrowed against when needed), and if there is an economic crisis derived from RE this group will get completely hosed. The bottom 50% of capital owners only own 5% of total capital. This is a wide distribution, with people at the far left owning negative balances, and people on the right having capital on the cusp of middle class levels. A lot this wealth, again, is in Real Estate (which, in this case is still heavily indebted, reducing net worth) and very small nest eggs. The distribution of capital ownership used to be such that the bottom 50% and the next 40% each only owned 5% of all capital, with the top 10% taking 90%. Over the 20th century, the middle class grew into a slightly more propertied class, obviously almost entirely at the expense of the top 10%. Of course, the top 10% is none too pleased with this development and has spent considerable effort and resources attempting to claw it back. Pension reforms being championed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (who are a couple of fanatical 1%ers) are a perfect example. edit: I almost forgot to mention, the ownership of capital obviously has consequences for income distribution as well. The top 10% earn 35% of all labor income, which is pretty bad, but at least the next 40% earn exactly 40% of labor income, with the bottom 50% being generally hosed with 25%. When you factor in Capital income, the scale gets quickly out of hand. The top 10% earns 50% of total income, with the 1% taking 20% of total income, the Middle Class earns only 30% of total income, and the bottom 50% earn 20% of total income. Here's Piketty's online Capital in the 21st Century resource page. It's loaded with charts charts charts. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did. If healthcare costs wernt growing like an economic cancer that picture would be somewhat different. "Wages" exclude employer paid healthcare (and taxes). Worldwide inequality isn't really rising.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:If healthcare costs wernt growing like an economic cancer that picture would be somewhat different. "Wages" exclude employer paid healthcare (and taxes). Inequality is absolutely rising in the United States and the rich countries of Europe, however. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Inequality is absolutely rising in the United States and the rich countries of Europe, however. And it's only a matter of time for all the other countries. We are just the most advanced capitalist societies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Worldwide inequality isn't really rising. Where is the tipping though when inequality in the first world ultimately effects industrialization in the third world ie when the third world has nothing to ship to? Obviously, industrialization happened in East Asia but ultimately much of the third world has actually stayed in place for the most part. ------ Anyway, I have been reading the book, it is long and it will take some time but I have some impressions. First, his criticisms of Marx are not as deep or daunting as advertised and seem mostly positioned on the fact that a Marxist crisis didn't happen as predicted and Marx didn't take into account technological change of the 20th century (versus profit loss). Neither one seems particularly a strong argument for "obliterating Marxian economics." Also, as a Soviet Historian, I am not very impressed by the depth of his historical analysis. quote:The solution to the problem of capital suggested by Karl Marx and many other This paragraph in particular seems crude and boilerplate, and sums up the Soviet experience in far too few words. Yes, in fact the NEP happened, and the Soviet Union did indeed have a market experiment and calling the Soviet period as a whole "totalitarian" is ridiculously polemical. He is clearly not much of a historian. Nevertheless if you look at some of his critique, he goes actually pick up some of an Marxian dialogue at points. In fact, the book seems quite confused in many ways by desperately trying to separate itself from Marxism on one hand and then at times relenting and admitting that in fact Marx very often had a point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's an interesting take on the New Deal, that businesses recognized equality was in their economic interest and voluntarily went along with reforms because. You could interpret events in another way, too: businessmen and politicians witnessed the Russian Revolution, saw the growth of a radical labor movement in the USA as the economy was collapsed, and (temporarily) acquiesced to workers' interests so they wouldn't die. In the absence of real revolutionary danger I don't know that they'd be so willing to compromise. Not just the USA, either - Germany's national healthcare system was created under Bismarck's "state socialism" theory, which sought to take the steam out of left-wing movements by appeasing them with states controlled social reforms, in order to avert any potential social unrest those movements might cause. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, left-wing movements like socialism and anarchism, many of which preached radical reform of the system utilizing violence and revolution if necessary, were a growing problem worldwide even before the Russian Revolution shocked global capitalism, and many countries were looking for ways to pacify them. Even less-radical leftist movements, like unions, ended up involved in quite a bit of violence, sometimes to the point of open armed warfare. It's a bit difficult to imagine nowadays, but the first Gilded Age was a time of such social tension that economic disputes were resolved with blood, steel, lead, and homemade explosives. On top of that, the two World Wars were of such intensity that the governments involved often took a lot of control over their domestic affairs and markets, demonstrating that heavy government control of the economy wasn't as bad as capitalists would have you believe. The modern US income tax was created during World War I, and not only did taxes on the rich get quite high in WWII, but many other market controls and regulations were temporarily applied, such as wage and price controls, rationing of important goods, and so on. The social and political upheaval the wars caused is a factor too. It's no coincidence that both the British and French universal healthcare systems were formed within a few years after the end of WWII. Grand Theft Autobot posted:I am personally concerned about the inequality of Capital, more than the inequality of labor income (which is also a major problem). Capital provides a measure of security against various random disasters in life, like losing a job, injury or illness (for you or your family), or economic declines. It provides an ability to start businesses or get an education, or provide your family with one. The primary innovation of the 20th century is that we went from a situation where the top 10% of capital ownership held over 90% of all capital. It is still incredibly unequal, but today the top 10% hold 70% of all capital, and the next 40% (which Piketty dubs the Middle Class, for purely arbitrary reasons) clawed out 25% of all capital for itself. How much of that real estate is actually fully owned by the middle class with no mortgage involved, though? The 2008 crash demonstrated that "owning" property via debt has exploded far beyond the middle class's ability to actually afford, and I'd argue that counting mortgaged homes as being owned by the family paying the mortgage is somewhat comparable to counting people's credit card limits as part of their net worth. How much of the real estate boom is due to an actual increase in the prosperity of the middle class, and how much is due to the wealthy coming up with the idea of making themselves even richer by allowing the lower classes to borrow the rich's excess money and property in return for regular debt payments? The promise to be able to truly own the property after just a few decades of rent-paying doesn't, to me, equal current ownership. And the wave of foreclosures and underwater homeowners the last few years ought to put to rest that idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Where is the tipping though when inequality in the first world ultimately effects industrialization in the third world ie when the third world has nothing to ship to? Obviously, industrialization happened in East Asia but ultimately much of the third world has actually stayed in place for the most part. Inequality doesn't really impact aggregate demand though. It determines who gets stuff. And if, as I assume you would point out, the rich save more, it still doesn't matter. Their "savings" are investments (capital), or deposits. Or in other words, the financial system deals with "savings" and other people get to spend the "saved" wealth in the immediate. The tipping point where the financial system can't cope with this is really far away. And it takes a lot of people to build a yacht (and this very much gets outsourced). So the "who are they going to sell to" idea isn't really a thing. Most especially when we're talking globally and long term. Grand Theft Autobot posted:Inequality is absolutely rising in the United States and the rich countries of Europe, however. Definitely not disputing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
I'm not an expert on East Asia, but if inequality is decreasing in India, it's doing so incredibly slowly. And the existing inequality is at such a high level that it probably represents the upper end of what the US could handle, since there isn't a long standing caste system holding the poor in place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'm not an expert on East Asia, but if inequality is decreasing in India, it's doing so incredibly slowly. And the existing inequality is at such a high level that it probably represents the upper end of what the US could handle, since there isn't a long standing caste system holding the poor in place. It's not a caste system, but widespread prosperity has been withheld based on race and class in America since before its founding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Inequality doesn't really impact aggregate demand though. It determines who gets stuff. And if, as I assume you would point out, the rich save more, it still doesn't matter. Their "savings" are investments (capital), or deposits. Or in other words, the financial system deals with "savings" and other people get to spend the "saved" wealth in the immediate. What you're describing is a system where the lower classes are permanently indebted to the rich in order to maintain basic consumption. I wouldn't call that sustainable or say that it doesn't impact aggregate demand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Inequality doesn't really impact aggregate demand though. It determines who gets stuff. And if, as I assume you would point out, the rich save more, it still doesn't matter. Their "savings" are investments (capital), or deposits. Or in other words, the financial system deals with "savings" and other people get to spend the "saved" wealth in the immediate. Inequality very much impacts aggregate demand, if purchasing power erodes, so does the ability to buy consumer goods. If the population of the West doesn't have the excess capital from wages to buy goods, it will certainly effect demand. Capital in real estate or equity in this sense isn't very useful because it is generally illiquid. In addition, wealth in the US is also slanted heavily based on generation and race, so a wealthy baby boomer may own some real estate but that isn't going to mean much for the economy if they are likely to purchase less as they grow older and unlikely to touch that equity unless necessary. Manufacturing for luxury goods isn't going to lift the third world out of poverty either based on the numbers. Relying solely on debt at the consumer level is very likely to be short lived and if anything will probably accelerate the process as assets are sapped to pay off debt. I don't think you make much of a compelling case in that sense, the decline of the first world middle class and its lack of a replacement is very likely to have a long term impact on consumption thus jamming the important "motor" of globalized industrialization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Delighted this is getting more attention. It's really interesting to see a new skein of books tackling the link between economic inequality and political responsiveness. I was a big fan of Larry Bartels' Unequal Democracy back in 2008, arguing that political responsiveness is skewed almost completely towards high income citizens in the US. That being the case, the status of legislatures as impeccably democratic institutions gets called into question quite severely. I think the implications of this are going to be great for revitalising democratic theory and spur a renewed debate on what we should expect out of our democracies/why we want democracy in the first place that doesn't rest on a reductive understanding of democracies as places where elections happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'm not an expert on East Asia, but if inequality is decreasing in India, it's doing so incredibly slowly. And the existing inequality is at such a high level that it probably represents the upper end of what the US could handle, since there isn't a long standing caste system holding the poor in place. At least in China there are definitely issues developing that are similar to those in the US during the late 19th Century (eg, poor wages, lovely working conditions, beginnings of organized labor, etc) but they are not really in view at the moment due to the fair amount of growth that the country is experiencing. When that stops then interesting things will happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Deng Xiaoping was a true believer, he just played the really long game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:When that stops then interesting things will happen. The government is already worrying about this scenario. But recognizing a problem is only the first step to finding a solution. It will be very intersting indeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's not that everyone wants to be an elite, it's that what everyone perceives as "normal" or "average" or "median" has become the sole province of the elite. With respect to time and history, it always was the sole province of the elite. That is my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Inequality very much impacts aggregate demand, if purchasing power erodes, so does the ability to buy consumer goods. If the population of the West doesn't have the excess capital from wages to buy goods, it will certainly effect demand. Inequality is inequality. It tells us only relative incomes and says very little about absolute output or growth. The financial system can cope with variations in savings rates (they vary a lot over time and between nations), especially globally and over the long term. Or to make another foray into the details, globally who cares about the american middle class? Basically every demographic except the first world middle class is growing rapidly. They can and will make up the consumption gap. Again, inequality is a story of shifting distribution, not overall output. So again, inequality by itself isn't going to cause an economic crisis. Small boat builders become yacht builders, and so on. Life goes on. Politically however, it may be a completely different story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Yes because this is totally happening in China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Inequality is inequality. It tells us only relative incomes and says very little about absolute output or growth. The financial system can cope with variations in savings rates (they vary a lot over time and between nations), especially globally and over the long term. The issue , as Piketty shows, is that inequality will almost certainly affect growth not only in the first world but likely in the third world as well since both are connected at the hip by growth. This thread is about a book based on the subject. quote:Or to make another foray into the details, globally who cares about the american middle class? Basically every demographic except the first world middle class is growing rapidly. They can and will make up the consumption gap. Again, inequality is a story of shifting distribution, not overall output. There was that claim in China and it didn't come to be, the Chinese middle class was and still is too small and marginal to provide the type of consumption China needs to finance continuing growth like it has. In fact, the last few years China has been riding on debt. Much of the developing world is in a similar or worse position. The First world middle class (especially the American one) was the driver of much of the consumption of the post-war period and in a sense, the Bush era was the last hurrah financed by mortgages. quote:So again, inequality by itself isn't going to cause an economic crisis. Small boat builders become yacht builders, and so on. I am sorry that is complete nonsense, construction of yachts and other luxury items in a global sense will be quite small in sheer economic terms and it is doubtful the rich will pick up the lack for loss in consumption in the rest of society. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah, there have obviously been more unequal societies, like the Antebellum American South, feudal Europe, etc. I don't think than non-political crises are inevitable (though it is plausible that extreme inequality renders the economy more prone to cyclical volatility), but I do believe the distribution of wealth and income in America is unjust and to a large extent arbitrary. That new Princeton study also demonstrates the ability of the rich to get more out of our political system than average citizens. I find it annoying every time some rich prick gets into an important policy committee I report to, as if they are just as important as actual elected officials.
Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Inequality is inequality. It tells us only relative incomes and says very little about absolute output or growth. The financial system can cope with variations in savings rates (they vary a lot over time and between nations), especially globally and over the long term. Okay, but a political crisis triggered by economic inequality will definitely have an effect on the economy because, you know, that's the entire motivating factor. You can't really separate them, especially once one side is in a crisis. Other posters have been alluding to this by pointing out how the German social safety net and the New Deal came into being. Inequality reaches a point that the political system deems to be a crisis--whether through scared elites (see above) or dead elites (Russian Revolution)--and acts accordingly. There's a reason 'political economy' is a term. rockopete fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait, wages are rising? Whose wages are these that are magically rising? Are you talking about numbers not adjusted for inflation or something? Middle and lower class wages have been flat or falling for decades now when adjusted for inflation. That's the problem: there have been massive productivity gains and all those gains have gone to the top fractional percent. We're all working smarter and harder and getting less for it than our parents did. "Wages" for former subsistence farmers in developing countries, meanwhile, have surely increased.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Yeah, there have obviously been more unequal societies, like the Antebellum American South, feudal Europe, etc. I don't think than non-political crises are inevitable (though it is plausible that extreme inequality renders the economy more prone to cyclical volatility), but I do believe the distribution of wealth and income in America is unjust and to a large extent arbitrary. That new Princeton study also demonstrates the ability of the rich to get more out of our political system than average citizens. I find it annoying every time some rich prick gets into an important policy committee I report to, as if they are just as important as actual elected officials. Ultimately, the issue is that during the modern era that multiple political crises did happen and while the US remained relatively stable, much of the rest of the world in fact did not. Capitalism survived in the end but it hand to ultimately reform itself to a considerably during the 20th century. The question is, will everything ultimately work out in the end because capitalism and the Western system survived its previous challenges? One issue I have with Piketty is that he has a harm time admitting that the crises of the 20th century were in fact quite real and if anything the Cold War if not the Cuban Missile Crisis was the prime example of that. I think the "liberal triumphalism" of the 1990s was a dangerous thing since it made us forget that in fact we have gone very far down the road of ideology and even if liberal capitalism won, it wasn't like it didn't have a real challenge nor the system itself was in danger of collapse via war (nuclear or otherwise). Are we going to be so "lucky" this time, because it work out the last time? quote:"Wages" for former subsistence farmers in developing countries, meanwhile, have surely increased. However, the cost of food and living in much of the third world also has seen recent price shocks. The start of the Arab Spring might have actually been spurred in part by rapid increases in the price of food (especially wheat and rice) during 2007-2008 followed by an global economic crisis. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Apr 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:It's a little odd to note that median wages in the west have been stagnant since the seventies without also noting that there was a massive growth in the labor force participation rate since then as more women entered the workforce. There was a 50% growth in the number of people looking for jobs and at the end of the day the jobs were paying about as much as they used to. The flatlining and lack of growth remains even when you're talking about household incomes. It's not just an artifact of the increased labor participation rate. Past that the "well, in the third world incomes have gone up, so inequality isn't a problem!" seems beside the point. The problem with inequality isn't just about providing a sufficiency to the poor; it's also that we should be caring about whether or not the elite rentier class is extracting an unjust share of everyone else's rents. In other words, the problem isn't just that wages are flatlining. It's that the huge productivity gains made over the past few decades aren't going to workers, they're going to rentiers. As was asked above, have you done enough to support your financial leech today? If you don't pay your home mortgage interest payments, how will he afford his next yacht?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:If healthcare costs wernt growing like an economic cancer that picture would be somewhat different. "Wages" exclude employer paid healthcare (and taxes). No, it probably is, but it's not true that everyone is backsliding. Real wages have gone up (not a lot, granted) for every income decile in the U.S. since 1979. Factor in the cost of employer-provided health care (which people can't eat, sure, but which still costs) and those gains would be higher. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Past that the "well, in the third world incomes have gone up, so inequality isn't a problem!" seems beside the point. But it totally isn't. If you're asking the question "into whose pockets did those productivity gains go" part of the answer is they went to 3rd world workers, partly they were competed away in the form of lower prices, partly they went to US workers and partly they went to capital. Hieronymous Alloy posted:As was asked above, have you done enough to support your financial leech today? If you don't pay your home mortgage interest payments, how will he afford his next yacht? drat those bastards who enable you to buy something today that you'd have to save 30 years to buy otherwise. How dare they reap compensation from your consumption!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2014 21:29
|
|