|
readingatwork posted:Prove it. Because for some reason he didn't respond, I think this is an illustrative graph: (http://voxeu.org/article/global-income-distribution-1988) The great majority of the world's population sits on the left of the graph and has enjoyed historically unprecedented growth over the recorded period. The 1% on the very right have also done very well for themselves. The 75-99% range, however, votes in America and Europe.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 14:06 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:50 |
|
Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course).
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 15:02 |
|
It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 15:24 |
|
Mozi posted:It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion. Free movement of capital is part of globalization though, and it is pretty tough to liberalize trade without finance. If that growth from the 1%/corporations were more favorably spread to the 75-99% it might have stalled the direction the world was going but you were still going to have issues with a rust belt and significant portions of your population without a future. Globalization was unavoidable in some capacity, but it certainly could have been done slower and with higher demands on the governments that were being traded to. In particular, there really was no reason to allow so much trade to flow to China itself with few demands, there is certainly other part of the developing world that manufacturing growth could have flowed to. High tariff walls weren't a solution, but globalization could have been conducted far far better.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:08 |
|
Mozi posted:It does make clear that (in my opinion) the fundamental problem is not free trade/globalization in and of itself, but the concentration of growth in the top 1% as a result of what more or less boils down to massive, often legalized, tax evasion. Agreed and that's what, for example, Thomass Picketty who studied global inequality extensively concluded. It's a policy that actually reacts to and addresses the problem. Instead both sides of the political spectrum have contributed to a toxic cocktail of ideological propaganda that's fueling our current crop of nationalist populist movements.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:13 |
|
Ardennes posted:Free movement of capital is part of globalization though, and it is pretty tough to liberalize trade without finance. If that growth from the 1%/corporations were more favorably spread to the 75-99% it might have stalled the direction the world was going but you were still going to have issues with a rust belt and significant portions of your population without a future. Except we're not going to get better globalization. Killing the TPP for example means less globalization and worse globalization as more power shifts into the sphere of China who gives less of a poo poo about workers and rights than the U.S. That's the perverseness of the "anti-system" propaganda. It's been incoherent and empty. As populists dismantle key aspects of the current system (as the left and right have told them to do) there isn't actually anything else there. Less US "imperialism" results in more imperialism. Less "exploitation" leads to more exploitation.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:26 |
|
Think back to the 2012 NIE we are headed towards "stalled engines"
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 16:58 |
|
The greatest trick globalists ever pulled was convincing people that robbing from the poor to give to the extremely poor was ok
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 19:04 |
|
asdf32 posted:Bold: Really? One word first: scale. The extent to which china opened itself to foreign investment and let its economic capacity be redirected towards foreign export is by foreign entities is 'liberalism' in that regard. It's historically notable in scale and sharply contrasts with how they (and much of the world) was previously operating (hence why the world 'liberal' exists to begin with, even though yes, words like trade and freedom have been around a while). None-sense. The one-child policy is about as anti-liberal a policy as you could possibly have and it was implemented at the same time that China was opening itself up to greater foreign investment and trade. Again, you're just making bald assertions here and not supplementing them with any actual evidence. Liberalism was supposed to be a package deal. If you can selectively pick and choose a few of its policies while ignoring others (like relaxing capital controls, democratizing politics, etc) to the extent that China does and then actually outcompete more liberal economies that hewed closely to the Washington consensus then the result cannot be cited as some great vindication of liberal policy. quote:The U.S. economically absolutely benefited in terms of GDP and purchasing power (there is no way we'd have the same access to all the consumer goods that are currently made in china) and the extent to which certain demographics were hurt by trade directly, versus automation or other trends is highly debatable. No, it's not ambiguous whether the rustbelt was hit hard by the way globalization was implemented in the United States. quote:Contemptible would be the first world kicking out the ladder behind them with trade barriers in a self-defeating attempt to prevent wealth from leaving their borders with with support from certain wings of the left who selectively use examples of the developing world they don't give a poo poo about to make ideological points. If globalization had been implemented in the way it was sold -- with wealth redistribution mitigating the painful economic restructuring triggered by changing trade patterns -- then this backlash wouldn't be threatening the world economy right now. Unfortunately these globalizing policies were intentionally implemented in such a way as to crush the labour movement and win domestic political battles, which triggered a massive expansion in corporate power and skyrocketing economic inequality. This pathetic attempt to retrospectively justify the breaking of the social compact between labour and capital by appealing to the welfare of Chinese workers is disingenuous and just emphasises how much liberalism failed in its own self-stated goals of improving everyone's living standards. If your ideology hadn't willing allowed itself to be conscripted into a domestic battle between labour and capital then it wouldn't have discredited itself in this way and it wouldn't have prompted such a vicious backlash. It's pathetic that you're now trying to redirect blame elsewhere.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2017 21:19 |
|
Alternately it could be confronted and the irony dissolved. This is a way forward:E. Warren posted:I’m going to cut to the chase: We’re gathered today in Baltimore during a moment of crisis—for us as progressives, for us as Democrats, for us as Americans.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 00:02 |
|
It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 05:09 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time. She didn't want to run. She was my first choice too.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 05:44 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time. Shes my senator and I voted for her but she's not a presidential caliber candidate in my opinion.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 17:17 |
|
Also she doesn't want it which is the only thing that matters.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 18:09 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It drives me insane that she was not the 2016 candidate. She was absolutely the perfect person to run at that time. Before the primaries MoveOn.org had done some questionnaires to find out who people liked and based on those results started the Run Warren Run campaign (which I supported). A little over a month after Hillary announced, the campaign was shut down, probably by Warren deferring to party wishes.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 19:02 |
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Also she doesn't want it which is the only thing that matters. I am increasingly of the opinion that the only people who should be allowed to become POTUS are the people who want the job the least, so only the most direly important stuff gets done. We're choking to death on presidents and Serious Candidates who are already writing their hagiography before their asses are warming the fuckin' chair to which they aspire.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 20:13 |
|
Well yeah the only people who are going to go through the hoops are the worst type to have power I think this cycle showed how useless it can be to be a big name in politics. All these rising stars and old pillars crashed an burned. Meanwhile no one knew who the hell Bernie was three years ago.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 20:25 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:I am increasingly of the opinion that the only people who should be allowed to become POTUS are the people who want the job the least, so only the most direly important stuff gets done. That's generally true of leadership positions in general in the end. The people who most want positions of power and influence are generally those that are attracted to power for their own benefit. There are exceptions of course and some people do genuinely just want to make the world suck less but those most attracted to power are typically those that will abuse it. The non-ambitious that wouldn't abuse the power are the ones who aren't going to run for office in the first place.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2017 21:32 |
|
Helsing posted:If globalization had been implemented in the way it was sold -- with wealth redistribution mitigating the painful economic restructuring triggered by changing trade patterns -- then this backlash wouldn't be threatening the world economy right now. Unfortunately these globalizing policies were intentionally implemented in such a way as to crush the labour movement and win domestic political battles, which triggered a massive expansion in corporate power and skyrocketing economic inequality. This pathetic attempt to retrospectively justify the breaking of the social compact between labour and capital by appealing to the welfare of Chinese workers is disingenuous and just emphasises how much liberalism failed in its own self-stated goals of improving everyone's living standards. If your ideology hadn't willing allowed itself to be conscripted into a domestic battle between labour and capital then it wouldn't have discredited itself in this way and it wouldn't have prompted such a vicious backlash. It's pathetic that you're now trying to redirect blame elsewhere. Let's say what we're all thinking. Which countries are invariably brought up as the ideals of progressive governance? Kingdoms, my friends, good and proper kingdoms. I'm not saying we didn't have a good run. In 1776, it probably even made a lot of sense. But today, it's time to call the Republican experiment quits, and once more embrace full monarchism. In fact, capitalism and communism are in fact both not-even-wrong ideologies that failed and died long ago, and we all live in their decaying ruins. Fascism doesn't need to be given the time of day, obviously. Hence, my friends, absent a method for reaching stable anarchist governance, that really only leaves one obtainable form of government, one shared by such glorious nations as Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Canada. It's up to the modern pragmatic progressive to bend a knee and subject themselves to the authority of good and proper Crown rule once again. For King and Country, comrades.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 12:59 |
|
Zodium posted:Let's say what we're all thinking. Which countries are invariably brought up as the ideals of progressive governance? Kingdoms, my friends, good and proper kingdoms. I'm not saying we didn't have a good run. In 1776, it probably even made a lot of sense. But today, it's time to call the Republican experiment quits, and once more embrace full monarchism. In fact, capitalism and communism are in fact both not-even-wrong ideologies that failed and died long ago, and we all live in their decaying ruins. Fascism doesn't need to be given the time of day, obviously. Hence, my friends, absent a method for reaching stable anarchist governance, that really only leaves one obtainable form of government, one shared by such glorious nations as Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Canada. Can we have enlightened despotism instead?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 13:33 |
|
NO
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 13:44 |
|
benevolent dictatorship?
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:40 |
|
asdf32 posted:Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course). Yes, lets argue that the 20% that is currently losing should just lie down and take it because people halfway across the world are doing better. That sure makes sense.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:47 |
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:benevolent dictatorship? Logistically impossible
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:47 |
|
For longer than at best a human lifetime, at any rate.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 14:58 |
|
Zodium posted:It's up to the modern pragmatic progressive to bend a knee and subject themselves to the authority of good and proper Crown rule once again. For King and Country, comrades.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 17:49 |
|
asdf32 posted:Right. Look at that chart and guess which 20 percent of the world population conveniently convinced themselves the sustem has failed and is actively trying to destroy it and screw everyone else (but mostly the poor of course). As they should. Nobody should ever accept "well the poor people in China are slightly less poor now" as a valid excuse for the complete destruction of the American middle class.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:39 |
The "hey you poors in America are being greedy think of the Chinese you are loving over by wanting a living wage and retirement" from liberals as the rich gobble up all the money never stops being infuriating. Even if that was a valid argument, it's pretty rich they think that people are going to vote for that when their families are doing worse and worse.
|
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:41 |
|
I'm taking that perspective as a way of saying 'let's reform the system to make it work' as opposed to 'blow it all up,' because I am actually concerned about outcomes.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:43 |
|
Mozi posted:I'm taking that perspective as a way of saying 'let's reform the system to make it work' as opposed to 'blow it all up,' because I am actually concerned about outcomes. Then maybe we should start proposing things that will reform the system instead of "proposing a reform" that looks an awful lot like blaming Americans for wanting more than Chinese slaves.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 18:47 |
|
Getting the wealthy and powerful to pay their fair share is something that might take a revolution to accomplish and enforce but I would rather be revolutionary in that direction than in a direction that will actually give them relatively more power and influence.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:27 |
|
The other thing that globalization shills can't quite account for is how sustainable the growth of third world incomes will turn out to be in the face of climate change. If the first world architects of the current global order had put half the energy into establishing universal environmental regulations that they've put into trying to secure investor rights then we might not be stumbling into a civilization threatening catastrophe right now. But Liberalism has gotten so atrophied and weak that all its advocates can do is retrospectively pretend that the last 40 years aren't a failed experiment but rather a noble exercise in humanitarian charity on behalf of Chinese peasants.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:28 |
|
Regarding the graph, how much does it account for cost of living (if at all)? Because part of what's happened in the US is that, while median wages have increased somewhat, they've been greatly outpaced by cost of things like health insurance and rent. Someone making less money in many other countries can actually end up better off because they aren't paying as much towards those necessities. Adjusting for inflation isn't really enough to account for this, since rent/health insurance cost increases make up a much larger portion of a poor/middle class American's budget than the amount of inflation that occurs over that same time period. So basically what I'm saying is that even if, on paper, a poor American is in the top 20% or whatever, that doesn't mean their quality of living is that high.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:51 |
|
SA_Avenger posted:Can we have enlightened despotism instead? PYF Dark Enlightenment Thinker
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:54 |
|
Ytlaya posted:Regarding the graph, how much does it account for cost of living (if at all)? Because part of what's happened in the US is that, while median wages have increased somewhat, they've been greatly outpaced by cost of things like health insurance and rent. Someone making less money in many other countries can actually end up better off because they aren't paying as much towards those necessities. Also that graft is missing the entirety of the recession and a general slowdown in growth including China. Basically, it is just showing the "Golden Age" of globalization. (oh yeah, the bottom 20% did actually pretty poorly considering it is a 20 span of high global growth. Basically, the middle 49% did pretty well from manufacturing, and 1% did very well for themselves.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:59 |
|
On the subject of healthcare spending this graph is relevant to some of the arguments this thread was having weeks back: It could also be taken as a very rough measure of how absurdly choked up the current US economy is by parasitical special interests that use lobbying and monopoly power to redirect income to their own coffers regardless of outcomes.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:58 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:She didn't want to run. She was my first choice too. It seems like Obama ran on similar rhetoric and then quickly booted everybody from his campaign (or acquiesced from the advice of the Establishment) to create a hybrid Bill Clinton/George W Bush Cabinet who helped cause the problems he railed against in the first place.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:01 |
|
Cheesus posted:Even if she did, do we have any idea of her strength to push her agenda and push back on the previous? Her track record is pretty clear if you google around for a minute or two. She trumps (heh) Obama in that regard handily, his time in the senate was marked more by his speeches than his ability to create effective progressive policy.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 22:52 |
|
So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQuHSQXxsjM
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 03:48 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 04:50 |
|
Rex-Goliath posted:So I know there's almost zero chance Mark hasn't been posted itt but just in case: Great advertisement for austerity right here: https://twitter.com/LabourEoin/status/828164390264389632 the radical austerity programme started in 2010 and has been going on since
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 03:52 |