Incredible article about capitalism and poverty from the New Internationalist "Progress and its discontents"

Zabo

Member
Oct 30, 2017
624
Pinker has given Hickel semi answer via whyevolutionistrue blog. This was answer to Hickel's previous article for Guardian, not sure if the article is same as in op.
I agree with the general idea of Pinker, that world has gotten better for most humans. But disagree how we got there. Also, his hand waving of multiple environmental issues is sickening.

edit. also good point about what is statistically true vs. what is just. Good article.
 
Last edited:

Keasar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,397
Skövde, Sweden
That was an excellent read. Always wondered what kind of inbred economics thought that somehow we could have less poverty while the richest kept getting richer. Less money somehow in the hands of the people meant more money in the hands of the people....what?
 

LCGeek

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,218
Can we stop with the guillotines joke? That massive, throbbing hard on for the French Revolution everyone forgets eventually lead to: 1.) Secret Police and 2.) Another Fucking Dictator taking over by the end.

I don't wanna kill the rich. I wanna tax the fucking shit out of them.
I totally agree with the first part, the problem is the elites don’t believe in taxes and will never pay their fair share.

I don’t see how any government can collect on them without the pricks making consumers pay for profit losses in some fashion or another.
 

Astandahl

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,617
Yeah the deregulation in the 80s was a terrible idea. Shocking news.

Do you want to see something ?



Poor people in Italy from 2005 to 2017. European Union is probably the peak of neoliberalism between common currency and austerity rules combination.
 
OP
OP
Sulik2

Sulik2

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,435
Inequality is really the root of so many of the world's problem. The ultra wealthy need to be taxed out of existence. It will never happen before civilization collapses this century, but it's a nice thought. Money = power when we have a civilization so they control all the power that would be needed to tax them.

That was an excellent read. Always wondered what kind of inbred economics thought that somehow we could have less poverty while the richest kept getting richer. Less money somehow in the hands of the people meant more money in the hands of the people....what?
GDP is growing so theoretically the poor would get some of the new money. But as quoted, new wealth barely goes to the poor.
 

JustinBailey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
822
Redistributing wealth is nice but to stop the problem from happening all over again, we need to completely end the exploitation of surplus value. We need to change the fundamental inequality at the point of production.
All this means inside a capitalistic system is mandating equity ownership distribution to every producer.
 

DrSlek

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,776
Inequality is really the root of so many of the world's problem. The ultra wealthy need to be taxed out of existence. It will never happen before civilization collapses this century, but it's a nice thought. Money = power when we have a civilization so they control all the power that would be needed to tax them.



GDP is growing so theoretically the poor would get some of the new money. But as quoted, new wealth barely goes to the poor.
GDP is a terrible and outdated way to measure prosperity.

 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,048
America
Basically the epitaph on humanity's gravestone.

Since Chernobyl is still "in" I'm going to reference it here: remember the thing about radiation sickness? How you seem completely fine and over your prior systems and A-OK, but then the body bloating and face melting and insides burning begins? We're still in the "this is fine" stage, but that's already changing quickly for many many human beings around the world. And we're incrementing our way to destruction. Sad thing is that we know it, but we keep on keeping on.

Maintain the system. Keep the balance. The center must hold.

Meanwhile our freezer is breaking down, oceans acidifying on an unforeseen level, and ancient forests are burning down, releasing carbon that should've stayed out of the cycle but is now free to wreak havoc....in 10-20 years. I'm not even sure the Arctic will be around for little forest carby to fuck up as he reaches adolescence. Still an ocean though, and even that defense is weakening and poisoning itself further risking ecological disaster on a planetary level. Fuck with the cycle of food, you fuck up period.

Basically all that needs to be said is that climate change and its effects are the ultimate gamechanger. We're no longer playing uno, checkers, or chess or videogames or whatever. This is some next level shit that our species has not seen yet. Equivocation wasn't an option even 30 years ago when there was no excuse of pretending it didn't exist, so even less of one now.

The entire world has to literally transform itself, erase tribal barriers, and work together on a scale of time and effort that would be unprecedented in history and it needs to happen yesterday.

But like you said, it's a tough sell. Instead of weakening, tribal barriers all over are strengthening. And that old horrible base trait of "fuck you, got mine" is really tough to fight now, but especially harder when the 20s, 30s, and 40s roll by to a 2C or hotter world and we're still attached to making this capitalist nightmare work out as our insides boil from the inside out.
Unfortunately, I agree. People aren't even aware of the ocean's acidification. At any time, We might reach a no-return level and start an unstoppable runaway effect that ends up poisoning the atmosphere and kills us all.

It feels as though Humanity had a countdown that started at the beginning of agriculture for one central entity to rule all of mankind and erase the tribal barriers standing in the way of "global energy reform". We needed a World Caliph, or Khan, or pope, or Hegemon, or Elder council, or president of the world to set global emissions quotas and redistribute wealth globally.

It didn't happen, for whatever reason (communication and transport were not up to snuff until last century in my opinion) and now the urgency of the matter is unprecedented. We failed massively at de-tribing. The UN is toothless and rules over nothing. A lot of people are willing to continue rolling the dice on the ecosphere and gambling with mankind's extinction. If sandy hook didn't get the US off guns, what will it take to get us off carbon ?

100 million dead in one single mega tsunami maybe?
 

Lathentar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
80
That was an excellent read. Always wondered what kind of inbred economics thought that somehow we could have less poverty while the richest kept getting richer. Less money somehow in the hands of the people meant more money in the hands of the people....what?
Wealth and standard of living isn't a finite thing. A parallel to your statement could be that less money in the hands of rich people doesn't mean more money in the hands of the people. They still have the same amount but inequality is lower. Historically the events that have significantly driven down inequality have been massive wars and stock market crashes, neither of which helped out the bottom but just demolished the capital at the top.
 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,048
America
Pinker has given Hickel semi answer via whyevolutionistrue blog. This was answer to Hickel's previous article for Guardian, not sure if the article is same as in op.
I agree with the general idea of Pinker, that world has gotten better for most humans. But disagree how we got there. Also, his hand waving of multiple environmental issues is sickening.

edit. also good point about what is statistically true vs. what is just. Good article.
Answer to the answer:

 
Mar 16, 2019
93
It has already been mentioned, but I would strongly recommend Hickel’s book, The Divide, if you are interested in this subject
 

ersatz

Member
Aug 14, 2019
13
I don't want to kill nor tax the rich. I want a society where no one is allowed to 'get rich'.
In a society where talented people are not allowed to "get rich", they go to the societies where they are allowed to do so. Even today and in many liberal societies, the brain drain is such a serious concern that it is described by leading economists as the main threat to development.

You can look for example at what is happening in the field of artificial intelligence. All the talented people in the world go to the United States for high salaries with very, very rare exceptions. Without overstating, I would say that there must be 9 out of 10 talented researchers who will work in the United States if they are not already working there.
 
Oct 27, 2017
861
I have two questions for people knowledgeable about the international taxation:

1. Is it possible to enforce a higher rate of income taxation on those earning huge sums of money (ie $1 million +) without them hiding this income in off-shore accounts and without necessitating the overhaul of the international taxation system; and

2. If it was necessary to overhaul the international taxation system to force through (1), would it even be possible to do so?
 

ersatz

Member
Aug 14, 2019
13
It depends on the country, for a Western country it is possible, for a poor country it is close to impossible.