| General > General Technical Chat |
| I have the feeling that the whole trade war starts from a pile of nonsense. |
| << < (74/145) > >> |
| apis:
--- Quote from: Simon on June 02, 2019, 09:06:40 pm ---Fact is we have massive inequality now. The ways the systems now and then worked is different so it makes no difference. --- End quote --- "the 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population." and "1% of people own more wealth than the other 99% combined." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined |
| soldar:
Yes, inequality has grown in the last 40 years in all western countries. While I do not think inequality is evil per se, it is a healthy middle class that gives a country stability (economic, political, etc) Once you have a society divided into two distant groups, the have nots with nothing to lose and the haves who have it all, then you have instability and, if things get bad enough, revolution. I think it was Churchill who said he did not believe everybody should have the same but it could not be that a few had it all and a lot had nothing. |
| apis:
Don't think it's that much different over here. :( |
| Miti:
I'm speechless... |
| SparkyFX:
Almost forgot about this good one on the trade war: Income inequality is surely a symptom, but calling it the cause would be just another form of scapegoating, as it is a systemic thing that when you inherit wealth or found a smart way to get a revenue stream you also tend to multiply it, by hiring people, automation or intellectual property, which creates an income inequality right from the start. The poverty line however is relevant, the question if you can afford housing and raise a family with bearable amounts of work/time spent to have an income. Obviously there are places where you can work your ass off and still stay poor as shit. I am not talking about excessive spending behavior, although debt is a huge factor. The financial aspects of businesses are usually highly optimized and as long as it is legal people and companies will avoid paying more than they have to, hire specialists that do nothing other than (legal) tax evasion schemes, investments, loan and deals - it is their job to do so. Maybe one needs to be of that mindset anyway, because otherwise you would not beat the competition. At that point the rubber meets the road and questions of moral get in conflict with the social system that needs to be in place. The income inequality is rooted in the fact that people are simply hired for work, exchange performance and time for money and are otherwise not dependent. Responsibilities and risks are usually the reason given for earning more, while i from personal experience would say that this is sometimes a fishy argument when people think they can also delegate the risks for executing their bullshit ideas (usually not the brightest bulbs in the box) or seem to think that health is a trade good. That sometimes creates the notion of irresponsible, willful, self-righteous exploitation. But anyway, the slope is there, within the same economy/nation, which means the consequences will also happen there, which means a government (that of all citizens; same rights for everyone; democracy...) is required to take action to avoid bigger problems, like the collapse of public services and facilities. The question of how to approach this can be asked in multiple ways, economically, statistically or psychologically (and it needs to be asked in several ways, because jumping from one argument to the next until you end at the start will not solve these problems). I mean the net worth of a handful of people at the top is only a fraction of what a tax system of any country moves per year, how this money is moved and where it gets spent is what the discussion needs to be about, whenever an economy needs to take care of it. I also don´t see the big spectre of risking economic growth by setting minimum wages or taxation on inheritance or businesses, not if that growth is based on the next big bubble (be it the poverty line, a theoretical tipping point, or the question who you want to sell foreign produced luxury goods to when it leads to an economic collapse and only a very small number of people can afford to buy them) or just delays problems into the future. This is where the inequality backfires statistically, a handful of people have no advantage in being their only market, they need people to buy their goods or services, so even for them a redistribution of taxes, changes in laws regarding tax evasion or enforcing bearable minimum standards should be a logical consequence in the long run. It is not as if inequality can go away or that i am talking full blown socialism (failed for similar elitist reasons), it would just be a course correction to the existing system. Of course in every group there will be under- and overperformers, that is how things are. Historically even in the harshest times a redistribution of wealth was actively practised, mostly on behalf of the church. You can think of it what you want, but this is a factor to consider. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |