17 Mar 11
Originally posted by DrKFI continue to believe that such pessimism is unwarranted; I do not believe that people are throwing off their domestic chains only to accept foreign ones. "Building from scratch" is hardly necessary; Egyptian, Tunisians and others can learn from the mistakes of the past (some even know how to read and can review The Shock Doctrine).
I'm surprised someone so misty-eyed is corresponding with The Economist. If the revolutionary states do not slip back in to oligarchy (a not unreasonable prospectus in itself), the likely sudden full emergence in to the neo-liberal globalised economy will create a de facto oligarchy in the multinationals (and a relatively small indigenous economic elite ...[text shortened]... ally, I find the idea of building something like it from scratch unlikely to succeed.
17 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRed rag, I suppose.
I continue to believe that such pessimism is unwarranted; I do not believe that people are throwing off their domestic chains only to accept foreign ones. "Building from scratch" is hardly necessary; Egyptian, Tunisians and others can learn from the mistakes of the past (some even know how to read and can review The Shock Doctrine).
We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe I'll be surprised and there will be something akin to some of the Latin American reforms. I just see it unlikely that, at a time when we in the west are handing over or giving up political power like idiots, our government will take kindly to nascent regimes asserting political power or giving it away to the people.
It's nice to know your reading list extends beyond dead English philosophers and anthropology journals.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsent Gaddafi, Libya has excellent prospects.
I continue to believe that such pessimism is unwarranted; I do not believe that people are throwing off their domestic chains only to accept foreign ones. "Building from scratch" is hardly necessary; Egyptian, Tunisians and others can learn from the mistakes of the past (some even know how to read and can review The Shock Doctrine).
http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/countries/north-africa/libya/
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettI know we've gone through this 1,000 times, but I'll try once more.
Lies. The Gini coefficient of the US is 45, while Venezuela's is 41. For comparison purposes, Sweden and Norway are at 23 and 25 respectively. Venezuela is getting better, while the US is getting much, much worse. The US is currently hobnobbing with nations like Cameroon and Uganda when it comes to income inequality. It's an absolute disgrace.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html
Why and how can you look at income inequality in a vacuum without also looking at income and GDP per capita?
Which is better:
a) Everyone has $800
or
b) Some people have $1,000; while others have $5,000 while still others have $25,000?
18 Mar 11
This is a similar problem which I have with the Queen of England's Crown Jewels. Their wealth and value is unamassed, but known as multi-billions. However, it is said in law that they are owned by the people (true English) of England. I want my cut before I cop it. Any chance of that? 😀
-m.
18 Mar 11
Another reason cynics like me believe it likely these revolutions will not fulfil whatever great promise we put in them: we will quickly see that the 'international community' is considerably less interested in human rights and democracy (long-term) than they claim to be, and will be just as happy to allow a non-liberal regime emerge as a liberal one. This time, it really is all about the oil.
It's funny how random firing in to traffic, kidnappings, street-fighting and house raids didn't become actionable 'violations of international law' (which is in practice, or in terms of consequences wholly discretionary) and it's funny how the UN Human Rights chief can declare the seizure of hospitals by the regime in Bahrain as a 'violation of international law' with, ahem, limited expectation of the 'international community' doing anything about it. Jeez, it's funny how the whole apparatus of oppression in those countries was accepted, tacitly approved, perhaps even actively encouraged for decades.
No, it's not all that funny. Neither's the punchline, which has something to do with the drop in oil prices immediately after the UN voted for action. (And remember that vote required China and Russia to deviate from their general policy of voting against intervention in sovereign states. For some reason.)
The lesson probably has to do with not flying armed fighter planes near oil refineries. Leave that well alone and nobody will do anything much except mouth platitudes. Again.
Any intelligent would-be dictators or oligarchs in the revolutionary states Should - and probably will - bear this in mind. And the 'international community' will heave a sigh of relief, and do much business with the new regime.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76And for the 1,000th time, I reject your argument out of hand (well, almost out of hand). Your example is ridiculous. I'm sure you must know it. How do you take a wealth range from $1,000 to $25,000 and come up with an average of $800? Even an economist can see that your math doesn't add up. Equalizing wealth toward the middle can't possibly mean that everyone ends up worse off. A vast majority of people will be better off.
I know we've gone through this 1,000 times, but I'll try once more.
Why and how can you look at income inequality in a vacuum without also looking at income and GDP per capita?
Which is better:
a) Everyone has $800
or
b) Some people have $1,000; while others have $5,000 while still others have $25,000?
Even if it were not so, a more egalitarian society with a lower GDP per capita will be healthier than a more unequal society with a higher GDP per capita. It matters not so much on how much total wealth there is, but on how it is distributed. More egalitarian societies simply perform better in almost every way.
And a third point is that I'd actually be fairly content with the wealth disparity you've used, where the wealthiest person has only 25 times that of the poorest. Sounds almost like heaven. But in actuality (as I'm sure you're well aware) the spread is vastly greater than that. It goes from Carlos Slim, with $74 billion down to people starving in the street with literally nothing. I see no possible argument that can defend that disparity. I suspect you know it as well, which is why you used such a modest example in the first place.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by DrKFI'm not sure why you believe the approval of Western elites is a necessary condition for these revolutions to succeed.
Another reason cynics like me believe it likely these revolutions will not fulfil whatever great promise we put in them: we will quickly see that the 'international community' is considerably less interested in human rights and democracy (long-term) than they claim to be, and will be just as happy to allow a non-liberal regime emerge as a liberal one. This time ...[text shortened]... ommunity' will heave a sigh of relief, and do much business with the new regime.
18 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know where you got the idea I believe the approval of Western elites is a necessary condition for these revolutions to succeed.
I'm not sure why you believe the approval of Western elites is a necessary condition for these revolutions to succeed.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76Actually, I recall a post I made a while back where I advocated a maximum wealth disparity of 100 to 1. You seemed to think it was a terrible idea (although I recall it was mostly due to your chronic inability to envision how any society that differs too much from ours could possibly function). Your example here, at 25 to 1, turns out to be four times more egalitarian than mine. Maybe I'm having a subconscious influence upon you after all.
Some people have $1,000; while others have $5,000 while still others have $25,000?
18 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI thought it was a bad idea not because I don't think that it would be nice to have a society where people are relatively equal, but because I don't think you can put a cap on income without irreparably damaging the incentive of people to innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole. I have no problem with taxing rich people. But a cap? Not a good idea.
Actually, I recall a post I made a while back where I advocated a maximum wealth disparity of 100 to 1. You seemed to think it was a terrible idea (although I recall it was mostly due to your chronic inability to envision how any society that differs too much from ours could possibly function). Your example here, at 25 to 1, turns out to be four times more egalitarian than mine. Maybe I'm having a subconscious influence upon you after all.
My example, obviously, was not suggesting that a and b are the same society, but merely was to point out that wealth inequality in a vacuum cannot be strictly worse than wealth equality. Other factors, such as income and GDP per capita, have to be factored in.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76The implied argument seems to be that people will only innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole IF they are compensated economically at far, far beyond what they any real use for.
I thought it was a bad idea not because I don't think that it would be nice to have a society where people are relatively equal, but because I don't think you can put a cap on income without irreparably damaging the incentive of people to innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole. I have no problem with taxing rich people. But a cap? Not a goo ...[text shortened]... han wealth equality. Other factors, such as income and GDP per capita, have to be factored in.
I find such an argument at odds with our nature and unhistorical; I'm certain that the vast majority of innovators would have done their innovating even if they knew they wouldn't be fabulously wealthy.
18 Mar 11
Originally posted by sh76There are other factors, or course, but wealth inequality is far and away the biggest determinant of the overall health and quality of any society. Once you've gotten over a certain GDP level, further increases don't necessarily bring an improved quality of life. How equitably a society's wealth is distributed will be a far greater determinant for an increased quality of life. The stress placed on societies with great wealth disparities cause an increased incidence of almost every social problem. While a heavily progressive tax is not necessarily a 'wealth cap', it would still have the effect of pushing the wealth extremes toward the middle.
I thought it was a bad idea not because I don't think that it would be nice to have a society where people are relatively equal, but because I don't think you can put a cap on income without irreparably damaging the incentive of people to innovate and produce things that benefit society as a whole. I have no problem with taxing rich people. But a cap? Not a goo ...[text shortened]... han wealth equality. Other factors, such as income and GDP per capita, have to be factored in.