🇳🇱
Next time someone trys to blame #capitalism on the cost of cars or a home now compared to in the 50's or at the the turn of the century just remind them we dont have a capitalism problem, we have a population problem. For most people in their 40's the population of the planet has virtually doubled since were kids, there isnt as much to go around as there used to be (and since the turn of the century the population has increased 5x).
And wealth has accumulated with a very small group of people.
This was also true in the past, so you could argue we only have a population problem.
But if we distributed wealth more evenly, there would be much less of an issue.
@ABScientist And yet The percentage of people below the poverty line has went from ~70% > 10% world wide in that time despite a greater wealth disparity... Funny that huh, its almost like having rich people or a wealth disparity doesnt cause poverty at all.
Why do I hear so much about people struggling? Your statistic seems to suggest that there is actually no problem.
@ABScientist No it doesnt suggest there is no problem.. It suggests (and explicitly states) that the problem has gotten much better.. 70% to 10% is a huge improvement, but it isnt the same as saying the problem was eliminated, only greatly improved.
As to why people wrongly think it got worse, thats simple, because fear and hype sells... while things have gotten monumentally better economically for everyone the news still makes money off convincing you the opposite, and it has worked, consistently, for over 100 years.
@freemo @ABScientist Better for everyone except for the extremely poor and, interestingly, the upper middle class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elephant_Curve
Productivity has also increased greatly in that time, with the benefits going almost entirely to the very wealthy:
https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-at-the-top-dwarf-those-of-low-and-middle-income-households-1
Yes, something trickles down, but not much.
No as we covered its even better for the extremely poor. Extreme poverty world wide has decreased from 70% to less than 10% world wide... that is absolutely an indication it is better for the poor (since the vast majority of them arent poor anymore).
> Yes, something trickles down, but not much.
The literal facts disprove that.. Simply the fact that billionairs keep increasing steadly over those 100 years and during that time poverty and violence went down consistently clearly disproves that assertion, clearly having a greater wealth disparity did not make things worse at all, in fact they have objectively gotten much better.
@freemo @peterdrake @ABScientist I don't understand where you get this 70% -> 10% figure. I have never heard of this.
What i did hear again and again is that profits are up for the very rich, which suggests that disparity is going up, not down.
Integrating the socializations of losses, which is something that i too hear about often, i don't understand how you would think that. Last instance siemens energy getting compensated for their losses on wind power with taxpayer money. And yeah, siemens (mother company) did make billions in winnings at the same time.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @ABScientist Freemo is correct that, over the long term, things are getting better for everyone:
https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$chart-type=bubbles
(Be sure to press the "play" button at lower left to see it progress over time. The Gapminder site in general will make one much less cynical about human progress.)
I don't think it's inconsistent with what I cited. It may very well be that at some point in the past 70% of people were in poverty, and of those the majority no longer are, but the poorest still are.
(I believe the elephant curve is per capita, BTW. Also note that it is a percentage increase. If someone making $10 a day and someone making $1000000 a day both double their income, they did not both get the same benefit.)
My mental model is that technology (artificial fertilizers, automation, etc.) has greatly increased humanity's access to resources. The poor have benefited somewhat from this, the rich have benefited hugely, and (because much technology entails resource extraction and pollution) future people will suffer greatly.
I also agree with Freemo's original point that population is a problem. (I don't, of course, agree with the big historical names in the population movement who somehow concluded that poor, brown people are the problem.) I find the IPAT equation compelling:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT
As to whether the poor have benefited *because* of the wealthy or *despite* them ... we might need a control planet to test that. I certainly see people who are absurdly wealthy while others still struggle, and a demand for perpetual growth manifested in consumerism.
Capitalism in the small -- private businesses producing goods and services, with competition driving them to improve -- is one thing. Runaway, unchecked, predatory capitalism is another.
@admitsWrongIfProven @peterdrake @ABScientist
There are many sources that show these numbers. Here is one such source, and yes its very much normalized well. But while normalization varies you will always get a chart mor eor less like this.
@peterdrake @freemo @ABScientist Not too sure what i can read out of the gapminder, it seems the income chart is not inflation adjusted? With different cost of living increases, such a chart can't work worldwide and make sense - would have to relabel x-axis differently for each country or place multiple "extreme poverty" markers ^^
Generally, some good points. Asymmetrical gains, pushing problems into the future (adding: keyword externalities).
And that last paragraph, absolutely. Freemo complained about lack of monopoly control in the past (i agree), but somehow it does get forgotten in newer discussions.