Also acolytes of Ayn Rand. Is there a worse possible mento to people with access to power?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Incredible article about capitalism and poverty from the New Internationalist "Progress and its discontents"
- Thread starter Sulik2
- Start date
Also acolytes of Ayn Rand. Is there a worse possible mento to people with access to power?
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.
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:
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?
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.
OP
OP
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 growing so theoretically the poor would get some of the new money. But as quoted, new wealth barely goes to the poor.
All this means inside a capitalistic system is mandating equity ownership distribution to every producer.
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?
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.
Answer to the answer:
The answer to the answer is basically the foundation of the article in the OP.
It has already been mentioned, but I would strongly recommend Hickel's book, The Divide, if you are interested in this subject
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.
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?
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?