|
Karnal
|
Pantheon wrote on Nov 11 th, 2015 at 11:16pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10 th, 2015 at 4:38pm: Pantheon wrote on Nov 10 th, 2015 at 12:33pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 10 th, 2015 at 11:20am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 10 th, 2015 at 5:49am: Karnal wrote on Nov 9 th, 2015 at 8:08pm: All free enterprise theories argue that trade brings fairness, Aquascoot. There is no ideological division between the objectives of economic theorists, from neo-liberal free-traders to Keynesian or even communist economic policies - ALL have fairness as an economic objective.
There is not one economic school of thought that advocates a divide between rich and poor. ALL economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, have equality as an end, or a foundational principle, of their ideas.
This, essentially, is what the field of political-economy is all about: lifting everybody out of poverty and generating prosperity for all in equal measures.
This is what modern politics is all about - in theory, if not in practice. The theory that politics can create a society where we are all equal is an interesting theory. While some political theories push for this, it's not the point. The point is reducing inequality. And it's not me saying this, it's the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, and a host of institutions and global forums. The growing divide between rich and poor is a major issue globally right now, second perhaps to climate change. The two issues, however, are interrelated. The rich and the poor produce more carbon emissions than those in between. Countries with large urban middle classes produce less CO2 than ones that don't. Poor rural people clear rainforests and burn firewood. The rich have multiple homes and use more energy. The middle-classes live in high density dwellings and have less kids. Cities are far more sustainable than either rural poverty or the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Energy and transport is more concentrated and efficient. Societies that cultivate their middle class produce far less CO2 emissions than ones that don't. Reducing social inequality is not only good for economies, it's good for the environment. Why is growing inequality is such a bad thing? Looking at countries with low inequality like pre 1980s China and 1950-1990s USSR vs High inequality states like 1950s-1990s United states, Lower inequality didnt aid or help with economy and the US was by far more environmental than the USSR.. You're comparing developing and developed economies. You might as well compare medieval Europe with Aboriginal settlement. But in the 1950s, the USSR had high growth and, compared to undeveloped countries (like China), a high average living standard. The USSR propped up a number of developing economies during this time. It became an economic basket case in the 1980s. Command economies have their benefits, particularly in the transition towards development. Growing inequality can be the sign of a sign of a struggling economy. Growing inequality leads to social and political unrest, if not upheaval. I would totally agree with you if we were talking about pre-capitlaism years.. Since then we have seen Growing inequality coupled with rising wages for the poor, increasing living standards Command economies tend to hinder development... freediver wrote on Nov 10 th, 2015 at 4:38pm: They tend to hinder development. Most of the "advances" under early communist Russia were the result of forcing people off the land and into industrial centres - something they had already done voluntarily elsewhere. It was a huge advance on the old system of overcrowded farmland and not much to do, but it was only ever going to be a poor imitation of what happened elsewhere. You can get rapid and sustainable improvement by simply allowing people to do it themselves. This is no different to the standard benign dictatorship fantasy that the government can manage the end product better (do you think we have 'finished'?). Russia has fallen in a heap precisely because the government managed the transition. Now they have to start from scratch and do it properly.
We had Growing inequality during the boom times where everyone from the poor to the rich saw their share of the pie increase in size rather than percentage, like freediver said Or a booming one. Or a steady one. Or no economy at all. Or crushing dictatorship. Or liberal freedom. I suppose it's a bit like reading tea leaves. When we talk about growing inequality, we’re raising a recent phenomenon. Wages growth a productivity shot up in the post-war boom, in line with the rise of the welfare state and population growth, the baby boom. The post-war boom ceased in the early 1970s. English-speaking countries responded with shifts in policy that increased inequality - lowered taxes, privatisation, corporatisation. The developing world followed suit and attracted loans and investment, which initiated its own boom, otherwise known as capital flight, or offshoring. Manufacturing moved east. Our own economies merged into services. The post-war boom years ended, and with them, the reasonably equal society we had. Back then, middle managers made about 60% more than their average employees. Today, that figure has raised to over 300%. For senior managers, the figure has exploded.
|
Forum
Pages: 
Is fairness a great driver of economic growth.. (Read 4422 times)
