Discussion
  • Read More
    pre-emptive sighHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:32am

    The world output would certainly go down

    This is the problem with economists in general. They see the economy as a good in and of itself, but in reality the economy exists to support the people. Having the most efficient economy produces the highest global GDP but if all the gains are going to the top percentile, then the society as a whole isn’t benefiting from the economy at all. I’d take a 25% reduction in GDP if it meant 50% more profits went to those earning less than median incomes.

    The end result of globalization means incomes stabilize worldwide. How long will it take an average Bangladeshi laborer to make as much as an average American laborer? It’s not in the average American’s financial best interest to wait for that to happen. It is however in Walmart’s best interest to continue exploiting that. Unfortunately Walmart has a lot more political influence than the average American. And therein lies the real problem.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SprungColossalpre-emptive sigh
      6/03/16 12:06pm

      That’s part of the problem; the field of economics almost entirely is still operating on the concept of unlimited growth and unlimited resources. All accepted models also only have “goods”, and externalize all non-monetary costs (climate change and pollution are the glaring examples). Did you know that an oil spill or other natural disasters can be great for GDP? It really shouldn’t be, but under conventional economics, it is. Maybe we need a way to differentiate “goods” from “bads”. A dollar of GDP from child care is better than a dollar of GDP from tobacco sales from many different points of view, but GDP don’t care, it’s all the same.

      The model is fundamentally flawed, and we need an accepted, modern model to replace it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Vox Populistpre-emptive sigh
      6/03/16 12:10pm

      A capitalist economy requires constant growth, it doesn’t work with permanent world-wide stagnation. What you describe is a fixed end result of a communist economy with set prices and socialized means of production - and, most importantly, no ever-increasing capital through interest on debt.

      Communism can only work as a joint global effort though, or else one inevitably runs into the same troubles that every single economy of its socialist predecessors did. As long as humans are separated by 200 nation states that need to compete with each other for capital, that won’t happen.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    XrdsAlumHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:31am

    The duality of domestic vs global inequality is indeed very tricky to understand, which is why proponents of the neoliberal economic consensus in the West constantly exploit it when pressed by their opponents:

    “Aren’t you a progressive? Don’t you want the Chinese and Indians to enjoy middle class lifestyles? You must be a racist!”

    When I’m debating with someone over horribly unbalanced treaties like TPP or TTIP or about race-to-the-bottom global economics it’s only a matter of time before that BS argument is pulled out.

    [please don’t bother with the no-value-added troll, folks]

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      BobbySeriousXrdsAlum
      6/03/16 11:37am

      Yep, they pull it out every time, which is so maddening because it’s laughable to think they give a flying fuck about the slave labor in fucking Asia.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumBobbySerious
      6/03/16 11:41am

      It’s even more laughable to think that they give a damn about a strong and educated middle class, at home or abroad. They only care about “consumers” and “human resources,” and that’s much easier to manage when they’re dealing with only two economic classes.

      That’s before we get to the issue of climate change, and the impact of billions more people living like American consumers in the 1980s. That hardcore neoliberals don’t care about that is clear from their stubborn opposition to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade, which are market-based solutions of the kind they usually worship.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    istariHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:27am

    I believe it is quite safe to say that global inequality is still increasing, despite this guy’s focus upon nation-scale comparisons.

    The billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are still increasing their wealth relative to that of a - for instance - rural Zambian woman who cannot farm because the government of Zambia has relocated her from her nutrient-rich land to a piece of untenable land, in the name of “conservation” (which is code for ‘we want tourists to come here so we can make money off their visas and tourism-related expenses, which will never trickle down to you and your fellow farmers’).

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      YoureReallyFuckinDumbistari
      6/03/16 11:32am

      Global inequality is THE defining feature of neoliberalism. That’s why it’s so scary to see a neoliberal as the nominee of the Democratic party.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BeABigRedOneistari
      6/03/16 11:41am

      That’s a very Western view of globalization. I read a few months ago (can’t find the source) that a UN study found that 3.5 BILLION people (mostly in Asia and Africa) have been lifted out of the l0west poverty level in the last two decades by globalization. A Brookings report said “We estimate that between 2005 and 2010, the total number of poor people around the world fell by nearly half a billion people, from over 1.3 billion in 2005 to under 900 million in 2010.”

      So yeah, income disparity in developed countries is a problem, but perhaps not the most important problem.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Quasar FunkHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:32am

    Excellent interview!

    and what then happens is even if parties associated with right wing populism don’t win, they push other parties, the centrist parties, towards their position.

    I mean, this has been happening in America for some time. Today’s mainstream Democrat is my father’s Nixon Republican.

    Today’s mainstream Republican is a combination of Biff Tannen, Scrooge McDuck, and Jim Jones.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ThidrekrQuasar Funk
      6/03/16 12:00pm

      As I’ve said elsewhere, the Democratic Party’s lurch to the right in the 1990s meant the GOP had to go even further to the right to set themselves apart.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SprungColossalQuasar Funk
      6/03/16 12:01pm

      You guys really need to get a more modern, multi-party political system. This election cycle is more proof than anyone should require to see that.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Catie 43890Hamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:24am

    And yet data like this won’t stop people from majoring in gender studies or communications or fine arts. Few people actually are willing to make the necessary changes to adapt to a changing economy. And somehow it will be the market’s fault.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeCatie 43890
      6/03/16 11:33am

      Don’t worry, minimum wage programmers are coming.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Catie 43890╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
      6/03/16 11:39am

      That’s okay! Minimum wage will be $17.oo an hour.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    AlpacaHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:29am

    “If that problem is not attended, it would reappear in four years. And in Europe, it is appearing very strongly, and what then happens is even if parties associated with right wing populism don’t win, they push other parties, the centrist parties, towards their position. So they do have an influence even if they’re not in power.”

    Very much this.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumAlpaca
      6/03/16 11:54am

      Even if, as is likely, the Orange Grifter loses, all these white middle class and blue collar people who are angry and terrified about their economic precarity and thwarted entitlement aren’t going away. And since their “solution” is to look for scapegoats and retreat into an isolationist and protectionist fantasyland, the GOP will go along with it (or be replaced in the duopoly by real right wing populist party).

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AlpacaXrdsAlum
      6/03/16 12:00pm

      I agree. Keep in mind the US as a whole is, and has traditionally been an isolationist country.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Low Information BoaterHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:28am

    “Well everybody knows that the Kuznets Curve is an inverted U. What this book presupposes is... maybe it isn't." <rides off into the friscalating dusklight>

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ScyllaLow Information Boater
      6/03/16 12:58pm

      It was also written in an obsolete vernacular. “Vamonos amigos!”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeHamilton Nolan
    6/03/16 11:25am

    My takeaway is that the only cure for income inequality is to return to being an undeveloped nation.

    Trump 2016!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Toodeloo, slow canoe!Hamilton Nolan
      6/03/16 12:10pm

      God, this is such a great interview. You do great work, Hamilton, I just wanna say and from the bottom of my heart. There’s really no one else in the mainstream media that does like you do.

      And that’s . . .Sad!

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        cylonsarecuddlyToodeloo, slow canoe!
        6/03/16 5:24pm

        I would recommend reading the opinion pieces in The Guardian. A UK rather than US paper it does, sadly still expose many investigative scandals in the US.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      TheLifeofPabloHamilton Nolan
      6/03/16 11:25am

      “...the hordes are coming...”

      - Selfish Rich People Since The Dawn of Time

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        Quasar FunkTheLifeofPablo
        6/03/16 11:41am

        “...the hordes are coming...”

        Oh, sweet I could use a...Oh, HORDES. Nevermind.

        Reply
        <