Capitalism...

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[meadowlander]

1. Kind of yes.

Your rent covers more than a mortgage does (insurance, upkeep and repairs). If I factored in all of the additional costs I have as a home-owner, my mortgage payments plus all the other costs are about what I would be paying in rent for a comparable place.

Some landlords price-gouge but a lot are just sitting on the property for capital gains.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

48. My mother used to complain about property taxes.

She argued that it would be cheaper to rent an apartment in the area, and I think she was correct.

The local school district was highly-rated, but it meant that the property taxes to help fund it were higher than most places in the area. New tax levies for the school always passed.

[comradebillyboy]

2. Still vastly better than socialism. nt

[I_UndergroundPanther]

3. Actually a little more socialism

In this country would be a good thing. Universal healthcare is true socialism.

Most people yelping about the eeeevvvills of socialism have no idea what it is. Same ignorance abounds regarding anarchy as well. Never believe what a damn capitalist says about socialism or anarchy.

[Poiuyt]

6. Universal healthcare wouldn't be socialism unless the government controlled all the providers

A single payer system would just be the source of payment for the providers, but they would still be under private ownership. England, BTW, has socialized medicine because the doctors, etc., are employees of the government.

[comradebillyboy]

9. Better social services aren't the

same as socialism. And most of Europe doesn’t have single payer.

[uponit7771]

12. +1, the medical industry is the US was given free reign in the 60s and there's no market regulating

... force on prices until the public option comes about.

WOW, Biden can be LBJ of my generation ... I pray that he is

[2naSalit]

4. How so?

[comradebillyboy]

7. The examples of history

Soviet Union, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, People’s Republic of China, North Korea. None of the former European socialist states want to bring back socialism. The remaining socialist states are human rights wastelands.

[uponit7771]

13. Name one without a dictator, of course states is going to fail if there's no response to the

... people via elections or some form of plurality.

A democratic socialist state (which is somewhat redundant but for emphasis) have thrived worldwide even individual states that simulate such in the US.

The 70 / 30 mix is hard to argue with

[comradebillyboy]

15. Ther are no "democratic socialist " states.

Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the like are all thriving market economies with generous social welfare benefits. They certainly aren’t socialist. I’m unaware of any socialist state that wasn’t a one party dictatorship.

[uponit7771]

16. They are technically democratic socialist states with a base minimum of services controlled by the

... state and elected by the people.

Socialism and capitalism do live together quit well

[brooklynite]

18. No, they are technically capitalist States with general social welfare...

As long as you're trying to redefine "socialism", you're losing the argument.

[uponit7771]

19. Socialism doesn't mean state controls "every aspect" either that's communism

"social welfare" isn't a form socialism? really ?! come on, we're stretching hard here. Again, ... capitalism can live with socialism just fine, there are too many examples.

[AZProgressive]

27. Those countries are known for Social Democracy

Which are similar to the policies of Bernie and AOC.

From what I read there are different kinds of socialism and saw Social Democracy part of that. I read that Social Democracy was the original Third Way between Capitalism and Communism.

[AZProgressive]

30. Technically Jamaica elected a Democratic Socialist in the past

Michael Manley. I didn't know that before a couple years ago because the focus is on other countries when it comes to socialism. He is also still considered one of Jamaica's most popular Prime Ministers.

I learned about it from a Bob Marley documentary and the CIA and others were doing everything they could to make the Democratic Socialist look bad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Bob_Marley

Bolivia does well with Evo Morales.

[brooklynite]

71. I've been to Jamaica; plenty of capitalism to be seen.

Plenty of private housing too.

[AZProgressive]

88. I'm sure the US would have plenty of Capitalism

If a Democratic Socialist was elected President.

[brooklynite]

89. Yes, because that wouldn't be Socialism...

[markie]

5. ?

[Yavin4]

8. At this point in human development, yes, capitalism is better than socialism.

For socialism to work, humans have to be operating at their highest level. Their highest critical thinking level. They have to feel an obligation to make society as a whole work. They have reconcile past injustices.

You cannot just change an economic system and expect everything else to fall into place.

[comradebillyboy]

10. Utopian ideas run into human

nature.

[Yavin4]

31. Humans are capable of progressing.

It wasn't that long ago when most of the world thought that slavery was legal and acceptable.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. Many parts of the world still think that, and chattel slavery worked just fine under...

capitalism and was actively encouraged, as is modern slavery in many countries, its how we get affordable chocolate, isn't that nice? /s

[Humanist_Activist]

54. Humans are mostly communal and altruistic...

For most of our history, if those weren't in our nature, we would have gone extinct. But we are complicated also, and yes, a minority can be extremely selfish and greedy. The vast majority of humanity just tried to get by while the selfish and greedy floated to the top and imposed their rule on the majority, sometimes through soft power(economic, religious, political) and sometimes through hard power(Military and police).

But, to be frank, it appears that most humans, even though we are short sighted, are largely altruistic to those we view as our "in-group". That in-group can vary greatly depending on personal beliefs and culture, of course.

[uponit7771]

14. Socialism is the state controlling aspects of society including money generation. There are few who

... are going to argue that private military and police forces should be allowed.

The idiots argue that there shouldn't be a base of public hospitals and health care

The 70 / 30 mix is hard to argue with, those economies are stable and they work

[Yavin4]

32. Not quite.

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. It does not mean a centralized govt controlling everything.

[uponit7771]

92. IE my use of "state" is generic in proximity of government, doesn't matter if its local or federal..

... government the state controls that aspect.

We're all socialist technically

[BGBD]

91. Well

I think lots of people would argue those things are a good idea, because they both already exist in the United States.

Companies like Blackwater and their heirs already operate private militaries armed well beyond what any regular person in this country is allowed to be.

Companies like Norfolk Southern and other railroads operate private police departments with full police powers in those states, but fully employed and answerable to the company.

[AZProgressive]

26. It depends

Keynesian economics or Social Democratic policies work but this widening inequality and if you're poor or homeless it is very difficult to climb out of.

Pretty much after Reagan-Thatcher is when capitalism stopped working or it stopped working for everyone.

[uponit7771]

11. Socialism doesn't stop the greedy either, engaged citizens do.

[Humanist_Activist]

21. Socialism is, literally, engaging citizens in the economy directly...

its providing a means for citizens to oversee, regulate and/or administer the economy in addition to the government.

[uponit7771]

22. ... and citizens in those societies can choose whether to engage or not. The concept of government

... doesn't stop bad shit from happening in either mostly capitalistic or socialist societies.

[Humanist_Activist]

23. Capitalism, by its very structure, is anti-democratic...

a tenant has NO control over even where they live. Just an example, my Sister and her family had to move in February, because they were evicted from the house they lived in the past 3 years, not due to non-payment, but because the corporation that owns that home wanted to update it and rent it out for more. At least they gave her a whole 2 months notice, but my niece and nephew had to change schools as a result, and this is during Covid, but not because of it, so its still allowed.

[uponit7771]

24. That's greed and shittiness, capitalism isn't a form of governing like socialism. We can have ...

... socialist societies where the base of human needs are regulated or provided by the state including living

and

have a system where

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

... that REGULATED.

Unfettered capitalism and unfettered socialism (IE communism where ever aspect of life is state ran) are both bad even under democratically elected governments that aren't dictatorships.

[Humanist_Activist]

28. Capitalism is absolutely a form of governing, if you have ever been working poor, you would know...

this truth. Indeed, capitalists have a greater effect on our lives than most government institutions. Your boss can determine whether you get to eat or have a place to live next month.

Socialism isn't when the state provides social welfare, which is, at best, a band aid used over the sucking chest wound that is capitalism in an attempt to cover up its most egregious abuses, but rather when we have democratic control over our own economic lives directly, as workers. Social Democracy, what you are talking about, works better in Europe than here, where they have a much stronger social safety net, strong unions, and in some cases, such as Spain, types of market socialism.

But even then its not "good" because many of their economic successes are propped up by capitalism in other parts of the world, where social safety nets are cut, corporations are deregulated, workers are ruthlessly exploited and where its illegal to organize. We live in a globalized economy, where you have China(a "communist" government) is cracking down on labor union organizing, another race for African labor that's going to make the post colonial period seem like a cakewalk and we still have a huge worldwide wealth disparity that needs to be addressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_inequality

[Silent3]

68. You're mixing up effects with causes

The wealth generated by capitalism can certainly have a corrupting influence on governance, but that's an entirely different thing from it being a form of governing itself. Capitalism has not a word to say about whether you have a monarch or a president or a prime minister or a council of elders. It says nothing about if there is voting, who can vote, whose vote counts for what... hell, capitalism doesn't even say that about stockholder voting!

In fact, "capitalism" doesn't say a damned thing about how to do anything. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. OK, question, my sister's kids just had to switch schools at the behest of a real estate company...

because they evicted them from their home so they could update said home and charge more for rent to future tenants. Did she get a vote? No, yet this has had more of an impact on her family's lives than damn near anything any level of government did to affect her life, positively or negatively, in the short term, excluding the recent stimulus checks.

Tomorrow, my boss can fire me without notice, I can then file for unemployment, and assuming my employer doesn't fight it, get a fraction of what I earned at my job, and then attempt to go to food pantries and/or beg for food/rent money until I might, might, be graced with another job in the future. We have very little as far as a safety net goes in Missouri, especially if you don't have kids, so mostly its hoping you get enough from charity. My life would be, at that moment, ruined and it could take years to build back up to what I had before that, what little assets I have being wiped out. 1 person having that type of power over me, yet they were not elected by me into that position, do you now see what is wrong with that picture?

[Silent3]

76. I never said that capitalism, especially poorly regulated capitalism, can't have very negative...

...consequences.

That still doesn't make it a form of government, no matter how badly you want to be able to say that to express your anger about those negative consequences. There hasn't been a society on this planet, no matter how it was governed or how its economy was operated, where some people didn't have the power to unfairly screw other people over.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Why the adjectives? Its literally built into Capitalism, those who have the Capital have the power..

otherwise it would be something else.

In addition, we should at least attempt to minimize the amount of screwing over that people experience in the economic sphere as much as the political sphere, for they are, ultimately, intrinsically linked, and that means more democratic oversight and more democratic control over both.

[Silent3]

81. Nothing is built into capitalism because capitalism isn't built

Capitalism is descriptive, not prescriptive. We've definitely passed laws and created institutions that are designed to facilitate a capitalist economy, but capitalism itself is neither instituted nor established. Capitalism simply exists where certain very basic, common conditions exist.

I get it. You're angry about the evils of a capitalist society. But that doesn't make it correct when you redefine words and abuse the definitions of words in any way that you desire for maximum rhetorical effect.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. That's true of nearly all economic systems, Capitalism is simply Mercantilism with slightly less...

emphasis on agriculture. Instead most of its resources are extractive in nature(Coal, Oil, NG, Rare Earth Metals now, etc.), unlike the Agricultural base that was needed from food crops under Feudalism and cash crops under Mercantilism. When I say that its "built in" I'm not saying it was designed, but this is an outgrowth of how capital, the value we place on resources, functions, parts are institutional, but its mostly systematic, and in the cases of all these economic systems, extremely exploitative of labor and nature.

[Silent3]

83. I agree with all of what you just said...

...while disagreeing with calling capitalism a form of government.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. In a literal sense it is not, but the effects can be the same or very similar...

but with no democratic oversight, also, there have been places and times where private interests did literally run every aspect of people's lives, and we seem to moving in that direction again. Corporate governance seems to be something a lot of people aren't nearly opposed to enough. Capitalism can, at the very least, act as a pseudogovernment under the right circumstances, and again, the overarching effects it has on workers lives, without democratic controls, are devastating.

[Silent3]

85. One thing that is a goverment-created institution is the corporation

I think that's a place we need to crack down a lot.

Corporations get a huge advantage from the limited personal liability of corporate officers and stockholders. Governments should demand far more from corporations in exchange for that limited liability than they do, forcing them to grant employees many of the same rights and protections governments grants citizens, and forcing them to do a lot more to socialize gains to balance out the benefit they get from socializing risk.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Corporate governance needs reform as well, similar to what happens in Germany...

Having workers on the boards as a default. Granted, I would want them to have the majority, by default, but at least some representation by labor unions would be a good idea. This is while still keeping the capitalistic system in place. Though we could use this a springboard to slowly transition to a market socialism model of co-ops and mutualism. On top of this, limiting the size and scope of corporations would also be ideal, we have, right now, a worldwide system of only a couple handfuls of corporations owning most markets worldwide, its nuts.

https://internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/

[brooklynite]

17. And the alternative solution?

[Humanist_Activist]

20. Tenant unions and tenant co-ops in addition to subsidized home ownership.

You know, like we used to do for white people several times in this country(hence the generational wealth gap), but opened up to everyone in the country. There is no reason in the world for anyone to be homeless in this country where we have more empty homes than people needing them.

[brooklynite]

70. So the Government is funding the construction of all housing?

Because Tenant Unions and Co-ops only work if they have the money to build-buy their house.

I've seen Russian and East German Government housing. I don't recommend it.

[Humanist_Activist]

73. Where the hell did you read that from my post?

Seriously, if you don't know what's being discussed, then don't insert yourself into the discussion.

[brooklynite]

74. I asked you what the alternative to Capitalism (in the context of housing was)

You offered Tenant Unions and Co-op with no elaboration. If I've mis-interpreted your meaning, feel free to educate me.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Uhm, I mentioned subsidized housing as well...

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Tenant's unions and co-ops to help with controlling rents and collaborating on ownership where feasible, and a type of "GI Bill 2.0" for the rest of us to increase home ownership, but without the racism and means testing that was in the first one.

[pbmus]

87. Excellent ideas...and thanks to everyone for a great discussion

My two cents worth on where we are and where we want to be.

Someone used the term unfettered capitalism...I most definitely agree with that term...we (the people) have allowed through our representatives the capitalization of basic human needs (healthcare, shelter, food). If our governments were only formed and tasked to do three things well, I believe it should be to provide these 3 essential human needs...in whatever form of government policy you want to call it...socialism, communism, capitalism, or wacandaism...

Unfortunately, we have allowed capitalists to exploit these needs which has caused untold human suffering.

[Ron Green]

25. "The Problem With Capitalism...

...is that there are not enough capitalists.”

—— G.K. Chesterton

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Of course he got that wrong...

The problem with Capitalism is that there isn't enough Capital.

We do not live with unlimited resources, there is a limit to the rate of growth and eventually that growth will stop.

[Ron Green]

35. Well, that's Nature's capital.

The trophic theory of money. Growth beyond what agriculture, extraction, logging and fishing will support can never be sustained. And that’s where we’ve been for some time now.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. True, and our current extractive centric system of capitalism is destroying...

our environment, its externalities will probably include a lot of suffering for humans in the future. It has been coasting on our cheap energy for 150 years, who knows how long that will last.

[gulliver]

34. Karl Marx is an imbecile who provides no data for his dumb theories.

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Damn, just...damn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics

[gulliver]

37. He's the QAnon of economics

It's impossible to read his work without thinking, "Sure, sure..." He's actually a smart enough guy that he would have made a good graduate assistant teacher nowadays, but if he had had data, his theories never would have gotten past at thesis review. Ridiculous.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. You sound like someone who never even read Marx, seriously....

open a book that's not written by an American spreading Red Scare propaganda. Also understand that Marxian critique of capitalism isn't the only critique.

[gulliver]

40. Not the case.

I've tried, really tried to read him. He's absurd, literally absurd. That's why I point out his absence of data. No data? Shut up, then. Sorry, but not sorry. He'd be nothing today if he tried to sell his (truly dumb, although superficially "interesting&quot theories.

[Humanist_Activist]

41. I don't believe you, and I say this as someone who isn't that much a fan of Marx...

Kropotkin is more my speed, but if that reference goes over your head, then I recommend you learn about these people and their works before attempting to "critique" them. Please note that the OP didn't mention Marx, you did, the OP was just pointing out an absurd and accurate observation of something that happens under capitalism.

So question, what points was Marx absurd about? Can you point out some of your problems with his observations or proposed solutions?

[gulliver]

42. Um, what I'm pointing out is that he provides no data.

Done. Scientific method. Done.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. To be frank, I reported your post for breaking the rule on personal attacks.

They are unnecessary and I'm attempting to educate someone who obviously hasn't thought much about Marxian analysis before. Your post isn't helping.

[revmclaren]

52. Was on the jury.

Just another 'one post wonder' reactionary.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. What do you mean by data? If I understand you right, then neither did Adam Smith...

according to your standards.

You are claiming he's "absurd" well, bring out the evidence for this, this claim of "no data" is completely useless without context and/or comparisons with other economists or philosophers.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. He provides the analysis, here's a wikipedia page...

it gives a decent overview of Marxian analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

[gulliver]

47. Sorry, but no data. His analysis is interesting, of course, but it ends up being worthless.

His ideas hold no water. He'd recant most of them if he were alive today and had the Internet.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, with no interest in attempting...

to learn anything. I don't understand this incuriousity? You seem to have very little understand of how economic theories are structured or how the data is analyzed. In addition, you keep making claims with no evidence and/or are impossible to answer, for what purpose?

[gulliver]

55. He's like Ayn Rand or pothead metaphysics.

Marx grabs, forgive me, neophytes who haven't gotten past marveling about their belly buttons and "having their minds blown." He's like Aristotle except, in comparison to Aristotle, Marx is an idiot.

[Humanist_Activist]

57. There are entire departments that use Marxian analysis in the top Universities...

in the world, for research, I might add, but only neophytes are grabbed by him?

Do you have anything substantive to add about how he is an idiot? Like citations? Disagreements?

[brooklynite]

75. I find Marxian arguments to be the equivalent of "intelligent design" in religion

They don't offer an actual evidence-based argument, they spend their time attacking the alternative.

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Do you understand what Marxist analysis is? It appears you do not...

its a methodology for inquiry, not just in economics, and there are whole fields of study at Universities around the world that use Marxist methodology and theories. At least learn about the subject you are criticizing.

[Xolodno]

49. I've given up on arguing in these threads. But here I am...

But that's an overly simplistic explanation. Of course you can google the definition...but ask a 100 economists what the definition actually means, you will get 300 answers. Same for capitalism.

Reality, there are no "pure" socialist or capitalist systems, and communism, still has not "truly" existed on a national scale (with the exception in Star Trek). It's somewhere inbetween. But I do believe we should move towards "socialist" policies. Such as universal healthcare, elimination of tuition, etc. That doesn't mean government is going to own your business, but may have a significant say on how you treat your workers, play fair with your competitors, etc.

But if people insist on "capitalism", then we should abandon capitalist-monetarism by that bastard Milton Freedman and fully embrace Keynes theories. After the Great Depression only some of his ideas were implemented....and were half assed. But that would also mean....

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Don't call that Socialism, not even with scare quotes, that's Social Democracy...

it still, on some level, preserves the system of capitalism in its basic form, that only a few people will own the means of production. I find such a system to be unsustainable and a corrupting influence on democracies long term, but maybe you think that we can keep Capitalists from having undue influence in democratic government.

[Xolodno]

58. I actually don't believe the capitalist system is sustainable. Keynes, will keep it around longer.

But c'mon, Marx is not the only model of socialism, there are numerous models, some practiced (but purist won't acknowledge that) and many still theoretical. And granted, his criticism of capitalism is very much valid from Das Capital, that doesn't mean should dogmatize his ideas for a better system. He's not the god of socialism.

Economics is a science and we have to evolve where the science takes us. Marx was "correct" as was Smith, Ricardo etc. But things change, new information comes out, societies change, values change, etc.

So you have to work with that. Just like astrophysics is wondering if their definition of a black hole may need to be changed, we may have to change our definitions of economic systems. Sure we got feudalism, mercantilism, etc. nailed down. I don't think we have capitalism and socialism quite figured out yet.

[Humanist_Activist]

60. I'm well aware that Marxism isn't the only form of Socialism there is, I'm not even a Marxist...

but Kropotkin isn't shown as an option in the Avatar selection.

ON EDIT: Changed Avatar to try to alleviate confusion.

[Xolodno]

61. True...but...

At least Milton Friedman isn't an option.

[Humanist_Activist]

63. Lol, yeah. I figured Samuel Clemens is close enough, especially considering we are both from...

the same state. He was definitely anti-imperialist like I am, and quite progressive, though I don't think he actually thought too deeply about economics, he was not a theoretician.

ON EDIT: Just noticed, I apparently have a thing about 19th century guys with copious amounts of facial hair, as a straight guy, I have much to think about on that one. lol

[BComplex]

53. It got a little out of hand, but this is a really interesting discussion of capitalism/socialism.

I, for one, appreciate everyone for their contributions to this discussion. Our country is trying to go through some serious changes, and is resisting going through some serious changes. This discussion is right on time, IMHO.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. The thing to take away from this is that this can get very complicated...

very quickly. Anti-Capitalism doesn't make one a Socialist, and those who fall under the "Socialist" umbrella vary wildly from each other. Democrats complain that trying to get Progressives together on damn near anything is like herding cats, they have no fucking idea. Try to get Trotskyists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Anarchists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Anarcho-Communists, etc. to agree on damn near anything and you will see some arguments. And I haven't even touched on the varieties in here that also exist within these communities/groups.

Hell, I'm an Anarcho-Syndicalist, but only insofar as it somewhat describes my very general overarching beliefs on how our political/economic system should be structured. I'm a huge fan of mutualism and don't believe in unjustified hierarchies, all hierarchies should be questioned, and I only view those under some type of direct democratic control by the community they have jurisdiction over to be valid. Its complicated.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

90. Anarcho syndicalist😸

Good to see you here.
Anarchist, I am one too. You can argue points better than I can. I get flustered and frustrated dealing with hostile or contrary types and I forget my points. Lose track. It sucks.

[Xolodno]

59. Oh yeah, it can get nuts. And then some.

Doesn't help when you have people calling the requirement to wear a mask as communism *facepalm*.

But we are still experimenting with various forms of capitalism...and maybe our current system, monetarism, here in the USA, isn't actually capitalism. And a century from now, classify it differently.

The Nordic Model, oh yeah, that will get a lot of economists blood boiling. Is it Socialist? Is it Capitalism with strong Social Democracy? I don't think we really know the answer to that. Of course we have our heated opinions.

Then there is Market Socialism, interesting theory. But no one does it yet.

And communal farms, collectives, etc., which is what many would say communism is founded on, seems to work well at the local level, but at the centralized level.....

I think we can call it "growing pains".

[Humanist_Activist]

62. There is some existing Market Socialism in Spain and a few other countries...

we also have limited versions of that here in much of our agriculture sector.

However, to throw another wrench into your system is the international aspect, because we don't all exist in isolation, but rather a world spanning capitalist system, so under that, you would have to analyze what is supporting the economies of Europe along with the United States so that we can maintain what welfare states we do have at our current living conditions. The Global South and East, of course, is propping us up at the moment. How long that will last, who knows, and whether we can peacefully move to something else is an even more important question.

[Xolodno]

64. Interesting. I'll have to dig that up.

Is anything about that mentioned in the Economist magazine? I dropped my sub a really long time ago.

And Marx thought the USA would transition peacefully, seems hard to believe today, but if we can drop the gold standard, move from half assed Keynes to monetarism...think it can be accomplished.

People revolt when they start starving. But then again, the Russian Revolution started because there wasn't enough bread in the markets....which is ironic, because there was enough bread. But two nobles were squabbling over how much of the cut they would get and wouldn't release the product.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. I don't know, I generally don't follow the Economist...

used to have a free subscription with my previous job, but I'm not going to pay for it. It was good if oddly slanted.

There is analysis of not only income inequality but development inequality between former Colonial powers and their colonies. A lot of it has to do with resource extraction, but quite a bit is also exploiting cheap, sometimes even slave labor, depending on product. Look up how Nestle and others source their chocolate, quite horrifying.

https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/

[Xolodno]

66. Yeah, you don't have to tell me about income inequality.

I did a study when I was still in the university on it, 20+ years ago. After completing it, I said, "Oh Shit". The trends on the Gini Coefficients were obvious and still continue. Good news, I did get an A+.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. True, there's also a weird lack of coorelation or causation between...

the the minimum and relative poverty levels worldwide, and the amount on undernourishment/hunger worldwide as well. They were, until the last recession, trending downward, but there's a variation of about 10% between them which makes no sense to me unless non-economic factors are that big in making a difference. There's also the problem with lack of reporting at all in many countries, I think somewhere around a third of the figures coming from the World Bank are conjecture at best.

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[betsuni]

69. That's unregulated capitalism, Republican style.

What happens when they're in power. When Barack Obama ran for president, he set a record for donations from Wall Streeters, yet he regulated Wall Street. Northern European countries like Denmark are market economies. Capitalism as an enemy is silly.