|
Cerebral Bore posted:I you really want to defend a system solely on the basis that people on average had a better standard of living in year X+Y than they had in year X, you ought to be a big fan of Stalinism. Fantastic comparison. Circa 1970 the Soviet Union was the best economic story the world had seen. But but it never delivered its other half - worker control of the means of production or acceptable rights. Liberal success stories of the post 1970s beat the Soviet economic records and got freedoms at the same time. China has improved on both fronts simultaneously (to a lesser extent).
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Helsing posted:No one is going to deny that China benefited from it's trade relationships with the west but we're talking about whether this vindicates liberalism. Because China benefitted precisely because it did not reciprocate. China's success certainly vindicates the concept of trade, something humans have been doing in various forms for more than 10,000 years. The fact two large regions of the world which barely interacted economically began to exchange goods, resulting in one of those regions becoming substantially wealthier, is not a surprising or counter intuitive response. Nothing about liberalism is particularly useful in explaining these results. But if you actually look at the details of how this interaction has played out then the record for liberalism looks a lot worse since the Chinese were able to open themselves to trade without actually transitioning into a liberal society, which is what everyone was predicting would happen. And meanwhile the supposed benefits to western consumers came at the cost of massive social dislocation, which produced a backlash, which now threatens to overthrow the whole system, assuming that the unsustainable environmental costs we're running up don't get to us first. 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). China has liberalized in every other respect to varying degrees too though at this stage, with its current GDP per capita its roughly where S Korea was under military dictatorship in the 80's. So its got a ways to go. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Helsing posted: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. The Marxist labor-capital framing is an antiquated and an ever more absurd over-simplification in a world currently dominated by populist movements dismantling many of the things you blame the elites for not providing. Disingenuous is a leftist downplaying what that chart means to workers. Moving wealth from rich countries to poor countries across the globe is one of the most fundamentally difficult things to make happen. Liberalism was advertised as being able to do it and delivered. Peace is also difficult and liberalism brought competing powers into a single global framework that delivered peace without mutually assured destruction. If you think the environment is bad now watch what happens to climate change collaboration if this framework weakens. The first world middle class didn't benefit as much as everyone else but that doesn't excuse them for allying with business elites to spite minorities or directing the energy of their recent resurgence towards lashing out at immigrants. Surely instead of 'sticking it to the elite' with Brexit and Trump they could have gone for higher tax rates or any other actual policy instead. At some point of course we need to figure out the underlying causes but you're the one who typically likes framing everything as a narrative of choice. Though you're unwilling to assign agency to anyone except your ideological opponents. No of course we don't need to treat everything as a package deal and the idea that we might approach global economic problems that way is absurd. Economic liberalization worked for China. That's clear and there is a lot of time left before the book is closed on their development. They're not the only example of course either and other examples have gotten essentially the whole 'package' like Japan or Korea. Helsing posted: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. The last gasp of someone trying to downplay the economic development of peasants they don't care about : cite the environment as if economic growth of the first world middle class doesn't come with similar environmental consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
call to action posted: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. There isn't an excuse I can think of yet for what the American middle class has done to itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:Like does anyone believe all these magically uplifted people aren't going to be shoved right back into the poo poo at the first opportunity? It didn't happen to Japan, or Korea. Human capital and infrastructure are real things worth money and they don't disappear which is how every rich country maintains high wages. Crowsbeak posted:I love how not wanting third cousins losing their jobs due to their plant being moved to Indonesia is now racist. Supporting family is apparently a bad thing. Being consistently amoral is a useful frame of reference but means applying it to the rich and the political elites above you as well. Not drawing an arbitrary line that happens to be right underneath you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Do you honestly believe a significant number of developing nations are ever going to end up like Japan or South Korea? No I don't think China is exactly going to turn into either though again, a lot of people get ahead of themselves judging China. Economically they're roughly where Korea was under military dictatorship in the 80's. But no they're not exactly on that path politically. In terms of economics its not ridiculous at all. The biggest trading partners of first world countries are other first world countries (for USA its Canada). The notion that trade needs a poor partner is completely false and counter to how most trade actually operates (and quick reminder that comparative advantage has nothing to do with wealth disparity). Or the idea that companies will leave china and make them poor again if they get too expensive is roughly the like predicting the same thing about switzerland, or NYC, which is to say that it's pretty dumb (particularly considering China's size).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:That's not some exclusively Marxist framing that is literally how mainstream economists look at GDP growth. There's a section of income that constitutes returns to labour and another that constitutes returns to capital. Discussing these different returns and how larger patterns like industrial relations or trade impact the returns to capital vs returns to labour is completetly standard and mainstream. Yeah this is getting ridiculous as you transparently repeat the thing you criticize me for like not making an argument and posting the same raw assertions. That 'capital' and 'labor' are categories that can be measured and are words that other people use doesn't make your framing of 'battle between labour and capital' useful. Which is of course the language I was referring to and, I will just repeat it because you didn't make an argument, a vast oversimplification given the actual realities of current events. The Tea Party wasn't either one. Nor did I say china 'massively liberalized' when I said china liberalized to 'varying degrees' elsewhere which shows up as better labor rights or for example introduction of some democratic elections at the local level. I'd also argue that economic empowerment forces the government to be more accountable and more responsive that it otherwise would be (or was pre-reform). It's not premised on infinite growth (literally a myth). Citing climate change just highlights the emptiness or naivete of where you stand. Global trade is the main leverage encouraging countries to cooperate to the extent they currently are (imagine china and the US without it). In theory a less globalized world can only replace that with pure good will (good luck with that) but back in real life the right wing forces lining up to actually replace the existing liberal global order are openly hostile to environmental issues and most everything else that you [actually both of us] support as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:YOU. JUST. NEED. TO. REDISTRIBUTE. THE. WEALTH. Yes exactly. Rather than fretting about islam and closing borders the first world middle class could do exactly this and solve their problems without screwing anyone except the rich who can handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The middle class doesn't determine global economic trends on the political level at all. Brexit
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:A decision that only existed because the political class put it in front of people in the first place in some weird attempt to give the EU public legitimacy. Had they known that the people might choose to leave the vote would have happened. So it's not the greatest example. It's a perfect example because voters dictated global political trends. The thing someone said they can't do. And it's not an isolated example at all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Standard of living calculations are tough because while a TV is still a TV, the TV we have now is a lot better than what they had in the 50's. I'm struggling to think of a class of goods that are not substantially better now than they were in the 50's, although there must be some. I'd say furniture but I really like my memory foam mattress. They can't and don't completely try to take this into account in inflation adjustments. Otherwise, for example the billion dollars of 1964 computing (or so) in out pockets would throw stuff off. So it's true that that goods across the board are better than they were and/or stuff didn't exist like many drugs, surgeries or medical treatments. Among the things this means: wage stagnation isn't quite wage stagnation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:UBI isn't actually a downward wealth transfer. Keep in mind that companies that don't pay their employees enough to live enough on are really the largest beneficiaries of most social services and a UBI isn't going to be any different, especially since anyone who would strictly benefit from it is going to be too poor to do anything other than shove the money right back into the economy. It's politically difficult (probably impossible), but it's not going to massively shake up society. People at the lower end will still work, they'll just do it for a pittance now since the majority of their income will come from the government. The people who don't work are going to pay all that money back into the system as consumers too. The money moves around, but the wealth is still going up. None of this makes any sense. Of course its a wealth transfer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It's not a net downward transfer of wealth unless we're talking about a very generous UBI or coupling it with a massive expansion of worker protections and government services. Actually moving wealth down in a way that "sticks" requires something well beyond a subsistence level basic income, otherwise you're only changing where the check comes from for very low income people. If I take $1 from richer people and give it to poorer people that's wealth transfer. Don't be stupid and obfuscatory. It's really as simple as that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. The point is that if we're talking about wealth transfer as a policy, then what matters is whether that wealth transfer has any net effect on the distribution of wealth in society. I'm saying that anything other than a very carefully designed (and probably impossible to implement) basic income probably wouldn't result in any real downward transfer of wealth. This is a pretty important point to make if your policy goal is, for example, to reduce wealth inequality. So again, if I take $1 from a rich person and give it to a poor person that's not wealth transfer how? Don't tell me it's only a dollar.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You're assuming that the government that implements a basic income simultaneously raises a new tax of equivalent size. Well I am assuming that tax increases would follow from UBI but it doesn't matter. The existing tax structure is already makes it so rich people pay more dollars. If the government writes out checks to everyone in equal values (the simplest form of UBI) it's majorly redistributive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The money could simply be printed by the government without raising any new taxes to "pay" for it. Unless the economy is already at or close to full employment this wouldn't automatically lead to inflation, it might simply cause idle resources to be put to work to service this increase in demand. Or you could eliminate anti-poverty and welfare programs and convert that money to an equivalent cash payment, which is something a number of conservative commentators have advocated for. The UBI has a strong potential to be re-distributive in nature (and I think that would be a strength and not a weakness) but it's not true by definition that it redistributes anything. It really depends on the larger context in which it is implemented and the exact manner in which it is designed. It's fallacious to think that there's a fixed supply of money that the US government has to tax away from the population first before it can spend on programs. So you're arguing with the "re" part of redistribution? Ok I can imagine scenarios when UBI doesn't subract income from rich people but it would increase purchasing power for poor people while reducing inequality. I thought that's the main point anyway. Though I'll grant another scenario where it wouldn't help: if it was paid for by cutting all existing services for the poor. Dr. Fishopolis posted:Not as percentage of income or holdings, it doesn't. US tax rates are mostly progressive until the very super rich. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
So how do you think inflation is calculated?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 04:13
|
|